This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Shoemaker (P) obtained a $25,000 mortgage on their home with Commonwealth (D). The agreement required that P carry insurance on the property. P allowed the insurance policy on their home to expire, and the home was later destroyed by fire. P alleges that D sent a letter to them informing them that if they did not purchase new insurance, D might be forced to buy one for them and add the premium to the loan balance. A phone call from D to P was made informing P that D would obtain the insurance if P did not do so. P claims that they assumed D had obtained the insurance. They also received no further contact from D regarding that matter. D admits that it sent the letter but denies the content of the phone call. D did obtain insurance for the home but let it lapse and further sent a letter to P reminding them of their obligation to have such insurance. When the house burnt down, P sued D alleging causes of action in fraud, promissory estoppel and breach of contract. The basis for all of them was D’s alleged failure to obtain insurance coverage for the home. D filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted D's motion. Even if D had promised to obtain insurance, it made no representation regarding the duration of that coverage. The court concluded that because D had actually obtained insurance, even though the policy later expired, it had fulfilled its promise to P. It reasoned that D had made no misrepresentation and breached no promise, and summary judgment was warranted. The trial court granted D's motion. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.