Tennessee Wife Whose Suicidal Husband Burned Home Denied Claims

A Tennessee woman whose terminally-ill husband burned down his house in an attempted suicide in 2004 is not entitled to collect under policies for the house and autos destroyed in the fire. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently agreed that Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. (TFMI) was right in denying the claims of Gladys Tuturea, who maintained that her husband, George, was insane when he set the fire.

George and Gladys, although married, at times lived in separate houses about one mile apart. Tennessee Farmers Mutual insured both homes as well as a Lincoln Town Car and a Dodge Ram. Mrs. Tuturea sought to recover under the three TFMI policies for the loss of the residence, two vehicles, and personal property destroyed in the fire. After she was denied, she sought damages in excess of $300,000 as well as costs and attorney’s fees.

TFMI denied insurance coverage in part because it believed they were lawfully married, members of the same household and she was an insured under the policies. It also said the fire was not accidental.

Mrs. Tuturea argued that the fire was not an intentional act but an accident caused by her husband’s attack of insanity and thus the intentional acts exclusions did not apply.

Mrs. Tuturea claimed that they were not members of the same household because “[s]ometimes they would stay in the same house and at other times they would reside apart.” While the couple sometimes lived in separate residences, evidence showed that Mrs. Tuturea voluntarily chose to live in Mr. Tuturea’s house to care for him in is illness for an indefinite period and was living there at the time of the fire. Although she visited her other home on occasion, the court concluded that she was “without question” a resident of Mr. Tuturea’s household. This led to the conclusion that Mrs. Tuturea was an insured under Mr. Tuturea’s homeowner’s policy.

Both courts rejected a psychiatrist’s testimony that Mr. Tuturea could not have formed a conscious desire to set the fire, citing testimony by emergency medical technicians that he acted of sound mind when they rescued him. Mrs. Tuturea acknowledged that he had once before threatened to burn the house, which the court said showed the fire was not unforeseen.

Finally, the courts said the policies clearly excluded recovery by an innocent co-insured for intentional acts by another insured. .