Summary
In Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company v. Burney, 759 F.2d 658 (8th Cir. 1985), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court and held that where an insured's deliberate acts, including a continuous course of misrepresentation of his own identity, created a situation that led directly to payments by insurer to beneficiaries of his life policies, the insurer could recover the amounts paid.
Summary of this case from Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. MyersOpinion
No. 84-2105.
Submitted March 15, 1985.
Decided April 11, 1985.
L. Ashley Higgins, Helena, Ark., for appellant.
James M. Simpson, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
In this diversity case, the plaintiff, Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, sued to recover from the defendant, John Fuller Burney, its insured, $470,000, that the company had paid out to beneficiaries of policies on Burney's life. The District Court found that the payments had been induced by fraud on the part of Burney and entered judgment in favor of the company. We affirm.
The Hon. Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.
On June 11, 1976, Burney, who was in financial difficulty, left his home in Helena, Arkansas, and traveled to other states, eventually ending up in Florida. He referred to himself as "John Bruce" and purported to marry another woman, leaving behind him his wife and children. He falsified records and concealed his true identity. More than five years later, Burney returned, but only after some $470,000 had been paid out by Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co.
Burney's principal argument on appeal is that he made no representation to the company, or indeed to anyone in or near Helena. He simply went away, and whatever false representations of identity he may have made were made to others, for example, his new "wife" and his new employer. We believe the District Court properly rejected this contention. Burney's deliberate acts, including a continuous course of misrepresentation of his own identity, created the situation that led directly to the payments by the company. Whether he is legally responsible is a question of state law, on which we normally defer to the views of the district courts.
We deem further discussion of the case unnecessary. The District Court's well reasoned opinion, 590 F. Supp. 1016 (E.D. Ark. 1984), amply covers the subject, and we affirm on that basis. See 8th Cir. R. 14.
Affirmed.