Legal Question in Insurance Law in California

Bankruptcy verses burglary. How does a BK trustee, lawyer, insurer, judge, etc value things?

A burglary effected a room of many hand tools and other personal items. Insurer denied my entire claim based on Estoppel. Claim listed new replacement cost of all items as policy stated. It was far above the value claimed on my 2009 bankruptcy filing of items I owned at that time. The claim was for things I had bought, inherited, given and traded for during the 20+ years prior to the BK along with many items I purchased after. The pre BK items was the normal used items. No high dollar marketable stuff. I was told by my BK attorney these items was not a concern of the BK trustee, that he was only concerned with high dollar items or cash and securities or collectables. Questions are has anyone dealt with this type of situation? What can be done? You own something and no one will pay you anything for it, what is its� worth? Verses if you had to go replace it due to a fire/burglary?


Asked on 12/20/12, 1:28 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

I would need to read the policy language. But if it really says your benefits will be based on the value of the items when new, then I don't see an estoppel issue.

Estoppel arises when someone who has gained a legal advantage by taking one position later tries to take a contrary position. If you held onto your possessions through bankruptcy by claiming they were worth, say, $1,000, you would be estopped from claiming a higher present value from the insurer (unless their value had actually increased somehow in the meantime). The law is not supposed to help people get away with duplicity, and estoppel is one of its primary methods to avoid doing so.

But that doesn't seem to be what happened. You told the bankruptcy court what the items were worth at the time, and you're telling the insurer what it would cost to buy new replacements today. You were answering two different questions, and there is no reason to expect your answers to be the same. If the policy says what you told us it says, then there is nothing unjust about claiming the actual replacement value regardless of what you told the bankruptcy court. The estoppel argument sounds wrong to me.

As I said earlier, though, I would need to see your policy language before I could reach a firm conclusion. And I'd also need to see what you told the bankruptcy court. It's possible that I would agree with the insurer once I had all the facts.

Read more
Answered on 12/20/12, 2:03 pm

Replacement value means replacement of the item with the same item - used. Unless a policy says it will replace with new items, all you get is the value as-is. Because you assigned value to the items in your BK case, the insurance company is saying you are estopped from claiming a higher value now. Personally that doesn't sound like a very good argument, but I haven't researched the issue. I'd ask your insurance company for legal authority that your BK filing is binding on you in an insurance claim. If they can't provide it, I'd be happy to talk to you about a bad faith case against your insurance company. Bear in mind, however, that unless your policy specifies replace with new, all you'll ever get is the actual used condition replacement cost of the things you lost.

Read more
Answered on 12/20/12, 4:56 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Insurance Law questions and answers in California