Violin v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.

Mischa and Jeannette Violin (plaintiffs) (collectively, the insureds) purchased an insurance policy from Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. (Fireman’s Fund) (defendant). The policy covered musical instruments. Fireman’s Fund later canceled that insurance policy. About four years later, the insureds submitted a new insurance application to Fireman’s Fund for a different musical instrument, specifically, a Guadagnini violin. The insurance application included a notice that if the applicant provided misleading answers to any question on the application, then the insurance contract would be void. The application included the question, “Has any company ever refused or canceled insurance?” The insureds answered “No” to this question. Fireman’s Fund then issued an insurance contract covering the Guadagnini violin. Two months later, the violin was lost. The insureds submitted a claim to Fireman’s Fund. In response, Fireman’s Fund rescinded the contract on the violin and denied coverage on the ground that by answering “No” to the question about cancellation on the insurance application, the insureds had made a material and fraudulent misrepresentation in application. The insureds sued Fireman’s Fund for insurance coverage. Fireman’s Fund presented evidence that the insurance agents involved in issuing the violin policy were completely different than the agents involved in the prior, cancelled policy, and that the records regarding the cancelled policy were not stored in the agents’ offices. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Fireman’s Fund. The insureds appealed.