469_C288
HO INSURED
FAILS TO COOPERATE
|
Homeowners |
Cooperation |
|
Intentional Act |
Prejudiced Rights |
Brian Cunningham was
insured, as a household member, under a homeowners policy with a $100,000 limit
issued by MetLife Auto & Home to his mother, Diane Cunningham. Robert and Edwina
Beland accused Brian Cunningham of fatally stabbing
their son, Jason. Cunningham was arrested for the stabbing, but the charges
were eventually dismissed. However, the Belands
brought a civil action against Cunningham, seeking recovery for Jason's wrongful
death and pain and suffering, as well as the Belands'
loss of consortium.
MetLife defended Cunningham
against the Belands' action, even though the policy
did not require it to do so. However, whenever he was asked any question
regarding the events surrounding Jason's death, Cunningham invoked the Fifth
Amendment and refused to answer. MetLife responded by filing an action asking
for declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify
Cunningham under the policy. The complaint alleged that Cunningham had
intentionally stabbed Jason to death, an intentional act excluded under the
policy's intentional acts exclusion clause. The Belands
and MetLife also filed actions under a
Finally, MetLife moved for
summary judgment on two grounds. First, it argued that Cunningham's responses
(or failure to respond) should be taken as admissions, and that those
admissions showed Cunningham had intentionally harmed Jason (an excluded act
under the policy). Second, it alleged that Cunningham breached his contractual
obligation to cooperate with MetLife. The Belands
also moved for summary judgment on the grounds that MetLife failed to prove
coverage for Jason's injuries.
The lower court judge ruled
in favor of MetLife, and the court of appeals agreed. The court stated that the
MetLife policy contained a clause requiring Cunningham to "cooperate
with" MetLife in defending the Belands' suit,
and that providing MetLife with information about how the incident occurred was
at the very heart of his duty to cooperate. This was especially true because
there were no eyewitnesses to the event.
The court also disagreed
with the Belands' arguments, including their broad
assertion that the insured's duty of cooperation did not encompass an
obligation to provide the insurer with information pertaining to the presence
or absence of coverage. While the court acknowledged there was some support for
the Beland's argument, the court stated that the
better rule is that the duty to cooperate does include the obligation to
provide accurate information bearing on coverage. This is because the insurer
typically has little of no knowledge of the facts surrounding the claimed loss.
Finally, the court stated
that MetLife met its burden of proof that it was prejudiced by Cunningham's
failure to cooperate. In the absence of any witnesses, Cunningham's statement
on the subject of his intentions was the only way MetLife could assess its
rights and obligations. Because of this prejudice, MetLife could deny coverage.
The decision of the lower court granting summary judgment to MetLife was
affirmed.
MetLife
Auto & Home vs. Diane Cunningham & others-No. 01-P-1514-Appeals Court of