A unit of the Hartford Financial Services Insurance Group Inc. is not liable to pay a claim from a Detroit butcher who experienced robbery, vandalism and a fire because of the insurer's suspicions of fraud, a divisional federal appeals court said Tuesday in a confirmation. a lower court decision.
Meat Town Inc., a butcher and grocery store in Detroit, filed claims against the Hartford Sentinel Insurance Co. for losses due to an afternoon burglary, robbery and vandalism that occurred on November 10, 2015, during which 13 tons of meat were allegedly stolen, and for a fire that occurred on December 19, 2015, according to the decision of the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati Meat Town Inc. v Sentinel Insurance Co.
The store never opened for business after the vandalism incident, and Meat Town's landlord was in the process of removing it from the property when the firefighter caught fire.
The store owner said there were $ 487,876,6 in losses and damages from the vandalism incident and a loss of $ 473,31
"The Sentinel suspected the allegations were fraudulent and launched an investigation, which eventually turned these suspicions into convictions that the allegations were fraudulent," and it denied both allegations.
Meat Town sued the U.S. Insurer in Detroit, which ruled in Sentinel's favor, on the grounds that the store had deliberately misrepresented the facts underlying its allegations of vandalism and robbery.
"Meat Town claims that the district court considered the parties' competing interpretations of facts, decided to The Sentinel was more credible and interpreted facts and evidence in Sentinel's favor, "the 2-1 decision said.
The statement said the Sentinel had shown that the suppliers had not delivered the meat allegedly stolen by the vandals, as Meat Town claimed.  Contrary to what Meat Town has argued, the district court not only considered Sentinel to be more credible and chose its interpretation of the facts r Meat Town, ”said Dom.
"The district court found that Meat Town had not produced any evidence to create a real dispute over substantive facts" on the meat issue and therefore could not survive a summary judgment, it said, confirming the lower court's decision.
The dissenting opinion stated, "a general question of substantive facts remains as to whether Meat Town's erroneous submissions" to the insurer "were intentional and ruthless. "
" I would consider that the summary judgment is inappropriate and would reverse and detain further proceedings, "it said.
Lawyers in the case did not respond to requests for comment.