State v. Henderson , 378 Mont. 301 ( 2015 )

February 24 2015
DA 13-0775
Case Number: DA 13-0775
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2015 MT 56
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
CYNTHIA MAE HENDERSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADC 2012-122
Honorable Mike Menahan, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Kirsten H. Pabst, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Tammy K Plubell, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Leo J. Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Helena, Montana
Mike Winsor, Special Deputy Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Office of
the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance, Montana State Auditor,
Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 19, 2014
Decided: February 24, 2015
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Patricia Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 In May 2013, Cynthia Henderson entered a guilty plea to felony insurance fraud
and theft. In September 2013, the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County,
ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $22,602.24 to Fire Insurance Exchange.
She appealed. We affirm.
ISSUE
¶2 Did the District Court err when it ordered Henderson to pay restitution to Fire
Insurance Exchange?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶3 From August 2000 through January 8, 2008, Fire Insurance Exchange (FIE)
insured Henderson’s home in Clancy, Montana, against various perils including theft and
vandalism. In 2005, Henderson moved from the home and relocated out of state. She
left many personal items behind in the home. On May 1, 2007, Henderson contacted FIE
to initiate a claim under her homeowner’s policy. She asserted that family members had
notified her that her home had been broken into and robbed on two separate occasions.
These invasions were discovered on October 21, 2006, and April 23, 2007. The earlier
robbery was reported to and investigated by the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department
but the Sheriff’s Department did not generate a criminal report or develop a suspect. The
second robbery was not reported.
¶4 In 2008, a suspect in possession of some of the stolen property was arrested, and
FIE therefore concluded that Henderson was a reliable witness. FIE paid Henderson
$22,602.24, representing property damage and actual cash value for the items Henderson
2
claimed were stolen from the home. FIE retained a reservation of rights under the policy,
one such reservation being a provision that voided the entire policy in the event
Henderson knowingly concealed or misrepresented any material fact pertaining to the
claim.
¶5 Under Henderson’s policy, she was entitled to submit an additional claim for the
replacement cost of items stolen. On June 26, 2009, Henderson submitted a supplemental
claim in the amount of $23,102.72 for personal property she asserted she had replaced.
She provided numerous receipts to substantiate her replacement claims. FIE found the
receipts to be suspicious and upon investigation concluded they were fraudulent. It
denied the supplemental claim and made a referral for criminal charges.
¶6 Henderson was charged by information on May 2, 2012, with felony insurance
fraud and theft. The State demanded that Henderson repay to FIE, as restitution, the
$22,602.24 the insurer had paid to Henderson on her initial claim. Henderson challenged
the insurer’s right to repayment of the initial claim, arguing it was not a fraudulent claim;
however, she ultimately entered into a guilty plea attesting:
That from on or about May 1, 2007, until on or about June 25, 2009,
[Henderson] purposely and knowingly made false or misleading statement
[sic] and presented a false receipt to my insurance company in support of
my insurance depreciation claim for the purpose of obtaining money.
¶7 The District Court entered judgment on September 27, 2013, sentencing
Henderson to six years, deferred, and imposing various surcharges, costs and conditions.
The court also required Henderson to pay restitution to FIE in the amount of $22,602.24.
¶8 Henderson filed a timely appeal with respect to the restitution obligation.
3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶9 The District Court’s imposition of restitution was based upon the court’s
interpretation of § 46-18-241, MCA. We review a court’s conclusions of law and
interpretation of statutes de novo for correctness. State v. Petersen, 2011 MT 22, ¶ 8, 359
Mont. 200, 247 P.3d 731.
DISCUSSION
¶10 Did the District Court err when it ordered Henderson to pay restitution to Fire
Insurance Exchange?
¶11 Henderson argues that FIE is not entitled to restitution for the claims paid under
the policy because the initial claim was legitimate. She asserts that because FIE sought
criminal charges for her fraudulent claim for replacement value, and actually never paid
any sums for replacement value, the insurer has not sustained a pecuniary loss as a result
of her criminal conduct.
¶12 The State counters that the “Fraud and Concealment” policy provision establishes
that any fraudulent conduct on the part of the policy holder, either before or after a claim
has been submitted, voids the policy. Consequently, Henderson’s subsequent fraudulent
replacement value claim voided her policy and the insurer suffered a pecuniary loss in the
amount of her initial claim—$22,602.24.
¶13 We review a district court’s imposition of a criminal sentence to determine if the
sentence is statutorily authorized. State v. Thorpe, 2015 MT 14, ¶ 7, 378 Mont. 62, ___
P.3d ____. Section 46, chapter 18, MCA, directs a district court to order a defendant to
pay restitution to a victim who has suffered a pecuniary loss. Sections 46-18-201(5),
-241(1), MCA. We have previously interpreted the definition of pecuniary loss to require
4
a “causal relation” between the defendant’s criminal conduct and the loss. Thorpe, ¶ 7
(citations omitted). Restitution may be imposed for losses caused by the facts or events
constituting “offenses to which the accused (1) has admitted, (2) has been found guilty, or
(3) has agreed to pay restitution.” Thorpe, ¶ 7. Here, in pleading guilty, Henderson
undisputedly attested to making false claims between May 1, 2007, and June 25, 2009.
In that Henderson submitted her fraudulent replacement value claim on June 26, 2009,
the time period specified in her plea clearly encompassed the timing of her initial
insurance claims. As a result, Henderson “has admitted” to a criminal offense that
resulted in a pecuniary loss to victim FIE and for which the District Court was statutorily
authorized to impose an obligation of restitution.
CONCLUSION
¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court’s order requiring
Henderson to pay restitution to Fire Insurance Exchange.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
We Concur:
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JIM RICE
5