Shoemaker v. Commonwealth Bank

The Shoemakers' (plaintiffs) mortgage with Commonwealth Bank (defendant) required them to carry home insurance, and after their existing policy was cancelled, a bank representative allegedly told Mrs. Shoemaker the bank would obtain insurance and add the premium to the loan if the Shoemakers didn't do so themselves — which she claims she then instructed the bank to do. Commonwealth claims it obtained insurance and later sent a letter warning that coverage would expire on a specific date, but the Shoemakers claim they never received that letter; after the insurance lapsed, the home burned down, and the Shoemakers sued for fraud, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract. The trial court found Commonwealth's promise only required obtaining insurance (not maintaining it) and granted summary judgment; the Shoemakers appealed.