Amidst numerous consumer claims that they were denied coverage because of misrepresentation in insurance, an Ohio resident claims that Allstate unfairly denied his insurance claim after his house was destroyed by a fire.

Ohio resident Charles W. says that he had insurance through Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, and filed an insurance claim after he experienced a house fire. He says that the fire occurred because a lit candle was left unattended.

However, he says that Allstate denied his claim, because the company claimed that he set the fire himself to commit insurance fraud, and then canceled his insurance policy.

According to Charles, he purchased a home in Dayton, Ohio on July 5, 2016, and had the property insured through Allstate Insurance. He says that he payed $607.82 in premiums for the property to be covered between Oct. 14, 2016 and Oct. 14, 2017.

Charles claims that the fire occurred on Oct. 15, 2016, damaging the house and the contents inside of it. He says that fire resulted in over $25,000 in damage, which left the house uninhabitable. Charles claims that as a result of the fire, he had to find another place to live.

Charles argues that after the fire in his home, he submitted a valid claim to Allstate insurance, but his claim was denied “for all purposes.” Charles claims that he received a letter from Allstate dated April 19, 2017, that said that Charles had committed misrepresentation in insurance in the course of filing the claim, and that he had the “means, motive, and opportunity to be involved in the intentional setting of the subject fire,” and that he intentionally concealed information during the claim investigation.

Allstate allegedly accused Charles of violating the terms of his insurance policy, and on that basis, denied his claim under “intentional acts” and “misrepresentations, concealment, or fraud” provisions in his policy, and canceled his insurance policy.

Charles said that this action by Allstate injured him financially because it caused him to lose the benefit of the money he had paid into his insurance policy with Allstate, and says that Allstate’s move to cancel his insurance policy jeopardized the terms of the mortgage that he had on the property involved in the fire, which required him to have insurance.

Charles argues that he did not set the subject fire, and was not involved in the intentional setting of the fire, arguing that Allstate had falsely accused him of committing misrepresentation in insurance. To support his argument, Charles notes that that Dayton Fire Department determined that the fire was an accident when they investigated the fire.

Charles goes on to claim that he complied with all terms of his Allstate insurance policy

Charles aims to hold Allstate Insurance liable for improper conduct. He alleges any misrepresentation originated with the Allstate employee who handled Charles’ insurance claim.

The Allstate Misrepresentation in Insurance Lawsuit is Case No. 3:18-cv-00290-WHR, in the U.S. District Court for the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Ohio Civil Division.