A Hartford Financial Services Insurance Group Inc. unit is not obligated to pay claims submitted by a Detroit meat retailer that experienced robbery, vandalism and a fire because of the insurer’s suspicions of fraud, said a divided federal appeals court Tuesday, in affirming a lower court ruling.

Meat Town Inc., a Detroit retail butcher and grocer, filed claims with Hartford unit Sentinel Insurance Co. for losses arising from an afterhours break-in, robbery and vandalism that occurred on Nov. 10, 2015, during which 13 tons of meat were allegedly stolen, and for a fire that occurred on Dec. 19, 2015, according to the ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Meat Town Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Co.

The store never reopened for business after the vandalism event, and Meat Town’s landlord was in the process of evicting it from the property when the arsonist set the fire. 

The store owner said there was $487,8769 in losses and damages from the vandalism event, and a $473,310 loss from the fire, according to the ruling.

“Sentinel was suspicious that the claims were fraudulent and began an investigation, which eventually turned those suspicions into conviction that the claims were fraudulent,” and it denied both claims.

Meat Town filed suit against the insurer in U.S. District Court in Detroit, which ruled in Sentinel’s favor, on the basis the store had intentionally misrepresented the facts underlying its vandalism and robbery claims.

“Meat Town contends that the district court considered the parties’ competing interpretations of the facts, decided that Sentinel was more credible and construed the facts and evidence in Sentinel’s favor,” said the 2-1 ruling.

The opinion said Sentinel has produced evidence the vendors had not delivered the meat that was allegedly stolen by the vandals, as Meat Town alleged.

“Contrary to Meat Town’s contentions, the district court did not simply deem Sentinel more credible and choose its interpretation of the facts over Meat Town’s,” the ruling said.

“The district court determined that Meat Town had not produced any evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact” on the issue of the meat and therefore could not survive summary judgment, it said, in affirming the lower court’s ruling.

The dissenting opinion said, “a general issue of material fact remains about whether Meat Town’s misrepresentations” to the insurer “were intentional and reckless.”

“I would hold that summary judgment is improper and would reverse and remand for further proceedings,” it said.

Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.