Fraud in Inception Allows Insurer to Rescind
Barry Zalma
Nov 29, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g4X8H3m7 and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g2x4Cg2V and at https://lnkd.in/gTq_tAiJ and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4650 posts.
Post 4678
Lamin Fatty appealed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to Farm Bureau on the basis of finding Fatty’s fraud was grounds for contract rescission and reimbursement of benefits paid. In Lamin Fatty v. Farm Bureau Insurance Company Of Michigan, No. 363888, Court of Appeals of Michigan (November 21, 2023) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute.
FACTS
After a motor vehicle accident where Fatty sustained bodily injuries the issue of rescission was raised when it was discovered that at the time of the accident, Fatty was insured by Farm Bureau under the no-fault act. Fatty obtained insurance with Farm Bureau on July 17, 2019. On the application for insurance, Fatty answered the following question in the negative: “Are any vehicles to be insured used to carry persons for a fee?”
Fatty received treatment for his injuries at Columbia Clinic among other medical facilities, and indicated to providers that he was “rear-ended as an Uber driver.”
Uber records indicated that Fatty began working as an Uber driver in early May 2019 (before he applied for the insurance) and drove for Uber on the day of the accident. Fatty’s drive log shows he picked up a rider at 6:05 p.m. and dropped them off at 6:30 p.m. Fatty picked up another rider at 6:38 p.m. and dropped them off at their destination at 6:50 p.m. Fatty continued picking up riders and completing trips that night until 8:17 p.m.
After this discovery, Farm Bureau filed a counterclaim on the basis of fraud, requesting reimbursement of benefits paid to or on behalf of Fatty with regard to the accident.
The trial court granted Farm Bureau’s motion for summary disposition of the counterclaim, including its request for reimbursement of $104,730.82 for benefits paid, because the policy was rescinded under the doctrine of fraud in the procurement. The trial court also found Fatty’s fraud entitled Farm Bureau to attorney fees under the no-fault act, and costs. Specifically, the trial court found the requested costs of $2,599.50 were reasonable and awarded $10,000 in attorney fees. Fatty appealed.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF THE CLAIM
The trial court properly rescinded the insurance policy because Fatty committed fraud in the procurement of the contract by explicitly denying using his vehicle to carry passengers for a fee. Because of this rescission, summary disposition of Fatty’s claims was appropriate, without regard to whether Fatty was driving for Uber at the time of the accident.
Fraud in the inducement to enter a contract renders the contract voidable at the option of the party deceived. An insurer has a reasonable right to expect honesty in the application for insurance. Rescission abrogates the contract and restores the parties to their relative positions had the contract never been made. A court must not hold an insurance company liable for a risk that it did not assume.
Farm Bureau’s evidence in the form of the litigation representative’s affidavit that he told the truth the policy would have been refused was unrefuted and it establishes the materiality of the misrepresentation. Fatty’s denial of carrying passengers for a fee was determined to be a material representation.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF THE COUNTERCLAIM
Reimbursement of the PIP benefits paid to Fatty was an appropriate remedy following rescission. Because the claim was fraudulent and Farm Bureau was the prevailing party, the award of attorney fees and costs was also proper.
The trial court properly awarded attorney fees to Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau was forced to defend against a claim pursued under a policy that was procured by fraud. Therefore, the award is within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes and was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the award of attorney fees and costs to Farm Bureau was proper.
The trial court properly rescinded the contract because Fatty committed fraud in the procurement by explicitly denying he used his vehicle to carry passengers for a fee. Because the claim was fraudulent and Farm Bureau was the prevailing party, the award of attorney fees and costs was also proper.
ZALMA OPINION
Rescission is an equitable remedy that allows a contract to be voided from its inception as a result of fraud in the inception of the policy of insurance. Farm Bureau was deceived by Fatty who lied about a material fact, that he was carrying passengers as an Uber driver. He received no fault benefits as a result of this fraud and the court properly ordered the policy rescinded, ordered Fatty to repay the benefits he received plus attorneys fees it took to defeat the claim. Fatty learned that fraud does not pay and that he should never lie to a prospective insurer.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe or at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; 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; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
