Eleventh Circuit Clarifies the “Material-Misrepresentation” Standard for Voiding Home-Owner Policies

Comprehensive Commentary on Travis Riddle v. Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Eleventh Circuit, No. 24-13200 (July 28, 2025)

I. Introduction

The appeal in Riddle v. Heritage squarely confronted the interplay between an insured’s post-loss statements and an insurer’s right to void coverage under a “Concealment or Fraud” clause. After vandalism occurred at Travis Riddle’s Atlanta home, he submitted a claim for both structural damage and the theft of large electronic items. Heritage denied the claim, citing material misrepresentations and a vacancy exclusion, and the district court granted summary judgment in Heritage’s favor. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit examined whether Georgia law permitted voiding the policy and whether the insurer’s conduct could constitute bad faith.

Parties:

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Travis Riddle – homeowner and claimant.
• Defendant-Appellee: Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company – issuer of the homeowner’s policy.

Key issues before the Court of Appeals:

1. Whether discrepancies in Riddle’s sworn statements constituted “material misrepresentations” sufficient to void coverage.
2. Whether Heritage’s denial amounted to bad-faith refusal to pay under Georgia law.

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit (Judges Jill Pryor, Kidd, and Tjoflat, per curiam) affirmed summary judgment for Heritage. Relying on Georgia precedent, the court held:

1. Riddle’s inconsistent statements regarding stolen televisions and his residency were material misrepresentations within the policy’s fraud clause, rendering the policy void.
2. Because Heritage possessed a reasonable, fact-based ground for denial, its refusal to pay was not in bad faith.

Finding no genuine dispute of material fact, the appellate panel concluded the district court correctly disposed of both the contract and bad-faith claims.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

• Perry v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 734 F.2d 1441 (11th Cir. 1984)
  – Established that under Georgia law, an insurer may void a policy upon proof of material misrepresentation, influencing risk acceptance or claim disposition. The panel drew directly on Perry for the definition of materiality.
• Hardigree v. Lofton, 992 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2021)
  – Quoted for the de-novo standard of review and Rule 56 summary-judgment framework.
• Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 597 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) and Allstate Ins. Co. v. Smith, 597 S.E.2d 500 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)
  – Provided the Georgia definition of “bad faith” and clarified that a reasonable factual or legal basis precludes bad-faith penalties.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Material Misrepresentation Determination
   • The court emphasized two key discrepancies—(a) the evolving claim regarding two 85-inch Samsung televisions, and (b) inconsistent sworn statements about Riddle’s residency (insurance application v. mayoral affidavit).
   • Applying Perry, these inconsistencies would “influence a prudent insurer” regarding both risk and loss, satisfying materiality.
   • Because the policy expressly voided coverage upon such misstatements, no coverage existed at the time of loss.
2. Vacancy and Occupancy
   • Although the insurer also raised the policy’s 60-day vacancy exclusion, the appellate court affirmed without heavily leaning on this ground, having already found the policy void.
3. Bad-Faith Analysis
   • Georgia’s statutory penalty for bad-faith refusals (O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6) requires proof the insurer lacked any “reasonable ground.” Heritage’s reliance on sworn contradictions, missing documentation, and investigation findings satisfied the reasonable ground test.
4. Procedural Review
   • Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to Riddle, the court found no genuine dispute. Thus, summary judgment was proper under Rule 56 and Hardigree.

C. Impact of the Judgment

• Clarification of Materiality Standard
  The decision reinforces that post-loss misstatements are equally capable of voiding a policy as those made at inception, provided they bear on coverage or claim value.
• Residency Representations
  Candidate affidavits, voter registrations, and similar public records can be used to impeach insureds’ occupancy assertions. Future litigants should expect insurers to scour publicly filed statements for inconsistencies.
• Narrowing Bad-Faith Exposure
  By again endorsing the “any reasonable ground” test, the Eleventh Circuit makes it difficult for insureds to obtain bad-faith penalties where the factual record shows any plausible basis for denial.
• Practical Litigation Strategy
  The opinion signals to plaintiff’s counsel the peril of amplifying loss amounts without contemporaneous corroboration. Sworn proof-of-loss figures inconsistent with the initial police report now carry heightened risk.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Material Misrepresentation

A false statement (or omission) that would influence a reasonable insurer’s decision to issue a policy, determine premium, or pay a claim. It is not necessary that the insurer actually relied on the statement; its natural tendency to influence is enough.

Concealment or Fraud Clause

A standard provision in many property policies voiding coverage if the insured intentionally hides or falsifies important facts either before or after a loss.

Summary Judgment (Rule 56)

A procedural mechanism allowing a court to dispose of claims where no genuine, trial-worthy dispute of material fact exists. All evidence is viewed in favor of the non-moving party, but bald allegations or self-serving contradictions will not suffice.

Bad-Faith Penalty (Georgia)

Under O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6, an insurer that wilfully refuses to pay without cause can be liable for up to 50% of the loss plus attorney’s fees. A “reasonable basis” defeats the penalty.

Vacancy Exclusion

Many policies limit or bar coverage for certain perils (e.g., vandalism) if the dwelling has been vacant for a specified period, commonly 60 days.

V. Conclusion

Riddle v. Heritage fortifies Georgia and Eleventh Circuit precedent that material misrepresentations—whether at policy formation or during claim handling—permit an insurer to declare the policy void ab initio. The decision underscores the importance of internal consistency in an insured’s statements and signals that public records and third-party testimony will be scrutinized. For practitioners, the ruling offers a robust defense blueprint for fraud-and-concealment cases and narrows the path for successfully litigating Georgia bad-faith penalties. The Eleventh Circuit’s clear formulation of the materiality standard is likely to influence both claim investigations and future litigation throughout the circuit.