Cases | State v. Cross, 93 S.W.3d 891 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) | 2018
The defendant pled guilty to presenting a fraudulent insurance claim and arson after he set fire to a mobile home for the purpose of obtaining insurance money. He was sentenced to prison time and was ordered to pay $24,752.03 restitution to Nationwide Insurance Company (Nationwide), which insured his residence. On appeal, the defendant argued that Nationwide was not a victim under the restitution statute as interpreted by State v. Alford, 970 S.W.2d 944 (Tenn. 1998). The Court of Criminal Appeals noted that Alford is distinguishable because in Alford the insurance company was not a victim since it paid the victim due to a contractual obligation; in this case, the defendant defrauded the insurance company and in so doing, victimized the insurance company. The court held that “Nationwide accepted the risk of loss relative to the defendant’s residence; it did not accept the risk of fraud by its insured” and, therefore, is a victim under the restitution statute. The judgments of the trial court were affirmed.