Rescission & The Covenant of Good Faith
Barry Zalma
May 29, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g4bRQPgr and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gCrfbXNs and at https://lnkd.in/gpGAR8Rj and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4500 posts.
The covenant of good faith and fair dealing was first reported in 1766 in the British House of Lords in Carter v. Boehm, S.C. 1 Bl.593, 3 Burr 1906, 11th May 1766, when Lord Mansfield decided against the insurer who claimed he was deceived by the insured because the insurer was not deceived and knew more about the risks than did the insured.
Lord Mansfield noted that the policy broker, who produced the memorandum given by the governor's brother (the plaintiff and insured) to him: and the use made of these instructions was to show that the insurance was made for the benefit of Governor Carter, and to insure him against the taking of the fort by a foreign enemy. The insurer contended that the plaintiff ought to have discovered the weakness and absolute indefensibility of the fort. In this case, as against the insurer, he was obliged to make such a discovery, though he acted for the governor.
Lord Mansfield noted that the special facts, upon which the contingent chance is to be computed lie most commonly in the knowledge of the insured only: the underwriter trusts to his representation and proceeds upon confidence that he does not keep back any circumstance in his knowledge, to mislead the underwriter into a belief that the circumstance does not exist, and to induce him to estimate the risk, as if it did not exist. Keeping back such circumstance is, Lord Mansfield concluded, a fraud. Therefore, the policy is void.
Even if the suppression of material facts should happen through mistake, without any fraudulent intention; yet still the underwriter is deceived, and the policy is void; because the risk run is really different from the risk understood and intended to be run, at the time of the agreement. The policy would equally be void against the underwriter, if he concealed; as, if he insured a ship on her voyage, which he privately knew to be arrived: and an action would lie to recover the premium.
Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.
The policy insured against the risk of the loss for Fort Marlborough, from being destroyed by, taken by, or surrendered unto, any European enemy, between the 1st of October 1759, and 1st of October 1760. It was underwritten on the 9th of May 1760. The underwriter knew at the time, that the policy was to indemnify, to that amount, Roger Carter the Governor of Fort Marlborough, in case the event insured against should happen.
Lord Mansfield noted that the underwriter who knew Carter to be the governor, at the time he took the premium--and the plaintiff proved without contradiction, that the fort was only intended and built with an intent to keep off the country and that the only security against European ships of war, consisted in the difficulty of the entrance and navigation of the river, for want of proper pilots.
That the general state and condition of the said fort, and of the strength thereof, was, in general well known, by most persons conversant or acquainted with Indian affairs, or the state of the Company's factories or settlement; and could not be kept secret or concealed from persons who should endeavor by proper inquiry, to inform themselves.
The computation of the risk depended upon the chance, “whether any European power would attack the place by sea.” If they did, it was incapable of resistance. The underwriter at London, in May 1760, could judge much better of the probability of the contingency, than Governor Carter could at Fort Marlborough, in September 1759. He knew or might know everything which was known at Fort Marlborough in September 1759. The contingency, therefore, which the underwriter insured against is “whether the place would be attacked by an European force; and not whether it would be able to resist such an attack, if the ships could get up the river.”
Lord Mansfield found that there was no imputation upon the governor, as to any intention of fraud. The reason for the rule against concealment is, to prevent fraud and encourage good faith. If the defendant's objections were to prevail, Lord Mansfield concluded, the rule of concealment would be turned into an instrument of fraud.
The underwriter, here, knowing the governor to be acquainted with the state of the place; knowing that he apprehended danger, and must have some ground for his apprehension; being told nothing of either set of facts; signed the policy, without asking a question.
Lord Mansfield found that an ethical underwriter with knowledge of the risks being taken, equal to or better than that of the person insured, could not, in good faith, claim that material facts were concealed from him because utmost good faith required the underwriter to use his superior knowledge to favor the insured.
The attempt at rescission failed but, simultaneously the 1766 decision setting forth the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in every contract of insurance has survived to this day as an effective tool for insurers to defeat attempts at insurance fraud. And the “marine rule” first enunciated by Lord Mansfield, that a misrepresentation or concealment of material fact, whether intentionally or innocently made, is a basis for rescission if the underwriter, the risk taker, is deceived.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at
Zalma on Insurance
Insurance, insurance claims, insurance law, and insurance fraud .
By Barry Zalma
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
