Delev & Associates
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Before Extending Credit
    • Civil Litigation
    • Commercial Collections UCC
    • Consumer Collections
    • Consumer Resource Center
    • Creditors’ Rights
  • About
    • Gregory D. Delev
    • Brian T. Giles
    • Donald W. Harper
  • Articles
  • Newsletters
  • Blog
  • Contact
Select Page

Burning down the house

by greg delev | May 29, 2015 | Contract Disputes

“All crime is stupid, your honor,” her defense lawyer said at her arson trial. “And this one elevates stupid to monumental new heights.” You know you’re in trouble when your defense in court is that you are monumentally stupid.

The arson that triggered the “monumental stupidity” defense resulted in a sentence of five years in prison for the woman charged with an accomplice for burning down her farmhouse about three hours west of Cincinnati. However, her deceptions carried far beyond the crime of arson.

The Kentucky woman also submitted an insurance claim for $866,000 for the house. The insurer paid her more than $425,000 before it filed in court to void her policy, alleging that she conspired to burn down the house and that she inflated the insurance claim.

The woman then filed a counterclaim against the insurer, alleging bad faith and breach of contract.

She eventually admitted that she had indeed hired a friend to torch her house so that she could collect on the insurance. According to a news story, she had a monthly house payment she couldn’t meet and a lifestyle she couldn’t afford. Arson was her apparent solution to her financial problems.

After her admission and indictment on wire fraud charges, the insurer filed a claim against her for reverse bad faith. As you likely know, bad faith is a term applied to insurance companies that don’t act in good faith and don’t engage in fair dealings with their clients who file claims.

The insurer in this case was arguing that its policyholder had acted in reverse bad faith, violating the terms of the policy and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Though an appeals court eventually rejected the insurer’s argument, it’s an argument that has been brought up in the past in Ohio and other places, and will undoubtedly rise again like a phoenix from a fire.

The case sheds light on some of what insurers have to endure daily from policyholders who have decided for one reason or another to breach a contract, file a false claim or otherwise try to rig the game in their favor. Insurance companies then rely on experienced attorneys to fight for what is right and to uphold contracts and deny inflated claims. In that way, we all benefit from lower premiums and knowledge that justice prevailed.

Recent Posts

  • Can you recover the costs for materials with a mechanic’s lien?
  • Retaining property from a borrower with financial troubles
  • How does foreclosure work in Ohio?
  • What are a creditors’ collection options?
  • What are the remedies for a contract breach?

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014

Categories

  • Business Litigation
  • Commercial Collections
  • Contract Disputes
  • Firm News
  • Uncategorized

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed