In Teel, there was a fire at the plaintiffs' apartment, which caused property damage and more seriously killed Ms. Teel and injured Mr. Teel. The fire inspector inspected, of course, and about a week later, an investigator from Allstate came to look around. Now, Mr. Teel did not know about this inspection (he seems to have been in the hospital), but the landlord let the inspector in. This insurance inspector poked around and removed a couple smoke detectors, some fire debris, and a carpet sample.

The dissent has a convincing critique of the majority's position near the end of the dissent:

Furthermore, the majority arrives at a disturbing factual conclusion: that, notwithstanding the fact that Lillian Teel died in the fire and Ricky Teel was in the hospital as a result of the fire, plaintiff somehow should have won a race with the property's insurance company to be the first to send an inspector to the property or to have taken steps to preserve the scene. Even if Ricky was not hospitalized, and even if he had been informed that the insurer was
sending an inspector to the property, it is inconceivable that someone who had recently suffered a serious injury and the loss of his wife in a fire should be expected to make the immediate logical deduction that the first order of business would be to preserve the premises from its insurer. At the same time, the majority analyzes the facts and oncludes, at least by implication, that no spoliation actually took place. This latter conclusion, if true, would be a matter for the trier of fact, not us. In any event, I would not "hold Allstate liable for the spoliation of such items" outright, but rather that plaintiff should have the opportunity to make a claim and present proofs thereof to the trier of fact.

Or at least I thought it was convincing until I read the majority opinion, which points out that Allstate claims that it still has all the items that it took from the apartment, properly preserved, but plaintiff has never hasked for them. And then this, in a footnote:

Plaintiff does not assert that Allstate actually took possession of any specific item of potential evidentiary value and then destroyed it or lost it. Instead, the crux of their complaint is that Allstate, by undertaking the inspection of the premises, assumed control and should have prevented anyone else (including the owner) from entering the home, taking possession of any items in the home or renovating or repairing the home.

This makes it sound a lot more like the plaintiffs are fishing around than that they have a strong spoilation case. At the very least, it is facts like those cited by the majority that hurt when plaintiffs are trying to tell a story about trespassing insurance inspectors who steal evidence and ruin wrongful death cases against slumlords. But appellate opinions do have a tendency to smooth over factual rough spots in the record, making everything seem more straightforward than it is. So who knows what lies in the record to swing the case back towards the plaintiffs?