"[I]n the absence of contrary proof," a verified bankruptcy petition is assumed to be "a true and accurate representation of [the petitioner's] personal property." Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott, 486 F.3d 418, 423 (8th Cir. 2007). Thus, to survive summary judgment, the Neidenbachs were required to produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that "the figures [the Neidenbachs] listed in [their] bankruptcy petition were inaccurate," that "the insurance proof of loss amounts resulted from mistake or were otherwise inadvertent," or that some other circumstance accounted for the discrepancies between the bankruptcy petition and the Proof of Loss.
Such misrepresentation clauses have been deemed valid and enforceable in Missouri. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott, 486 F.3d 418, 422–23 (8th Cir.2007) ; see also, Childers v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 799 S.W.2d 138, 141 (Mo.Ct.App.1990). According to Missouri law, despite the reference to the term, “fraud” in most misrepresentation clauses, the insurer is not required to prove the elements of fraud to avoid coverage if the policy language also indicates, as here, that the policy is rendered void for intentional concealment or misrepresentation of a material fact.
The type of exclusionary language in the insurance policy has been held to be unambiguous and enforceable. Childers v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 799 S.W.2d 138, 141; Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott, 486 F.3d 418, 422-23 (8th Cir. 2007); Santizo v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Cause Number 4:09cv151 SNLJ, Memorandum, July 9, 2010; Allstate v. Estes, 118 F.Supp.2d 968, 972 (E.D.Mo 2000). Under Missouri law, "a misrepresentation as to a portion of the loss may void coverage to the entire claim."
The Court must "view[] the evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor." Hinz v. Neuroscience, Inc., 538 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.Scott, 486 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir. 2007)). "If the evidence viewed according to this standard would permit reasonable jurors to differ in the conclusions they draw, judgment as a matter of law cannot be granted." Id.
He suggests that the property's replacement value is greater than the amount he paid for it, but "the vast difference" between the bankruptcy estate and his later claims "is still too great to be reconciled." Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott , 486 F.3d 418, 423 (8th Cir. 2007). To be sure, as Merechka points out, photographs show the home with various items of personal property inside.
See Parks v. Md. Cas. Co., 230 Mo.App. 383, 91 S.W.2d 1186, 1192 (1936) (stating that statements in a proof of loss bind the insured “unless they are contradicted or explained at trial”); see also13 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance, § 197:14 (3d ed. 2005) (“As a general rule, statements made in proofs of loss ... are not conclusive as to the claimant, provided they were made in good faith and without an intent or attempt to defraud the insurer.”). Our decision in Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Scott, 486 F.3d 418 (8th Cir.2007), is not to the contrary. Scott held that an insured's material misrepresentation regarding her personal property—reflected in discrepancies between an insurance proof of loss and a bankruptcy petition—voided the insured's coverage for fire losses.
Applying the same standard as the district court, this court reviews the grant of judgment as a matter of law de novo, viewing the evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott, 486 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir. 2007).
Under Eighth Circuit law, in deciding a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court "view[s] the evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in its favor." Hinz v. Neuroscience , Inc. , 538 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott , 486 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir. 2007) ). "If the evidence viewed according to this standard would permit reasonable jurors to differ in the conclusions they draw, judgment as a matter of law cannot be granted."
Under Eighth Circuit law, in deciding a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court “view[s] the evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Hinz v. Neuroscience,Inc., 538 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott, 486 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir. 2007). “If the evidence viewed according to this standard would permit reasonable jurors to differ in the conclusions they draw, judgment as a matter of law cannot be granted.
Such misrepresentation clauses have been deemed valid and enforceable in Missouri. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott , 486 F.3d 418, 422–23 (8th Cir.2007) ; see also , Childers v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 799 S.W.2d 138, 141 (Mo.Ct.App.1990). Amica argued in its first motion for summary judgment that the Neidenbachs made gross misrepresentations following the fire when they submitted their Proof of Loss.