Estate of Luster v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-insured alleging that defendant breached terms of insurance policy by failing to pay for loss arising out of fire damage to plaintiff's home. While defendant attempted to rescind policy by returning premiums after it discovered that plaintiff had not been living in her home for 4.5 years, fact that insured may not have occupied her home is not type of breach that would have entitled defendant to rescind policy. However, defendant will be permitted on remand to establish whether plaintiff's non-occupancy of home substantially increased risk of loss and/or whether vandalism was cause of fire so as to excuse defendant from payment of loss under vandalism or increase-in-hazard exclusions contained in policy.