Appellant insurer sought review of the judgment from the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco (California), which denied its motion for a new trial in respondent insured’s action against the insurer on an insurance claim. The insured’s insurance application, which was prepared the insurer’s agent, listed an incorrect property valuation.

Nakase Law Firm explains wrongful termination law California

Overview

An insured brought an action against an insurer arising from a claim in which the insurer’s agent wrote down the wrong value of the insured property on the insurance application. The trial court found in favor of the insured and denied the insurer’s motion for a new trial. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court found that there was testimony that, prior to the preparation of the written application, the insured informed the agent of the value of the property. There was also evidence that the insured did not read the application. The court found that it was for the jury to decide whether the insured knew of the contents of the application before he signed it, or whether he gave a valuation different from the inserted value and had reason to believe that his statement as to value had been written down as he had given it. The court found that for estoppel to apply it was necessary to determine whether the insurer knew of the intentional over-valuation. The court found that the jury was not authorized to find estoppel based only on the fact that there was an over-valuation and that the insurer requested production of proof of loss.

Outcome

The court reversed and remanded the lower court’s judgment that denied the insurer’s motion for a new trial in an action an insured. The court found that the jury was not authorized to grant estoppel based upon the facts presented to it during trial.