oepel v. Pacific Specialty Ins.
This case arises from the ashes of two separate fires that occurred on February 12, 2005, at the Leona Valley property owned by Kerri Roepel and Roepel’s then-husband, Howard Breuer. Their residence, which at the time was under construction from a January 2002 fire, was completely destroyed. A detached quonset hut, located approximately 50 feet from the residence, was also destroyed. Roepel claimed to have lost several hundred thousand dollars in personal property stored in the hut. Roepel timely submitted her claim to her insurer, Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (PSIC). Approximately 20 months later, PSIC denied Roepel’s claim and rescinded her policy based on numerous material misrepresentations contained in her application for insurance.
The jury concurred, finding Roepel misrepresented material facts on her application for insurance entitling PSIC to rescind its policy. The jury also found Freeway Insurance Services, Inc. (Freeway) was Roepel’s broker, not PSIC’s agent. Judgment was entered for PSIC and against Roepel on November 18, 2010. Notice of appeal was timely filed by appellants Roepel and her children, Ryan, Jesse, Kathryne and Madison Roepel (the Children).
Appellants argue there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings, evidentiary rulings by the trial court undermined appellants’ case, and the special verdict was unduly biased against appellants. Appellants also argue the trial court erred by sustaining PSIC’s demurrer without leave to amend, by granting a directed verdict for PSIC as to punitive damages and by granting a nonsuit as to Roepel’s children. We agree with PSIC that substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. In addition, we find all other claims of error lack merit. According
Comments on oepel v. Pacific Specialty Ins.