Neill v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 355 Ark. 474

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that summary judgment was improper where a genuine factual dispute existed regarding whether an insurance agent failed to ask about prior fire losses or inaccurately recorded the insured's response. Although an insured generally is bound by the contents of a signed application, the insurance-contract exception permits consideration of fraud, negligence, or mistake by the insurer's agent. The court reversed and remanded.

Holdings

1. An insured's signature does not require summary judgment for the insurer when the application was prepared by the insurer's agent and the evidence conflicts about whether the agent's fraud, negligence, or mistake caused the error.
2. Summary judgment was improper because the conflicting evidence about what occurred during the application interview presented a genuine issue of material fact concerning the cause of the misstatement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an insured's signature on an insurance application conclusively binds the insured to an incorrect answer when the application was prepared by the insurer's agent and the evidence conflicts about whether the agent asked the relevant question or accurately recorded the insured's response.
2. Whether the conflicting evidence regarding the application interview created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment declaring the policy void ab initio.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded