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of the counterclaim, including its request for reimbursement of $104,730.82 for benefits paid, because the policy was rescinded under the doctrine of fraud in the procurement.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The trial court properly rescinded the insurance policy because Fatty committed fraud in the procurement of the contract by explicitly denying using his vehicle to carry passengers for a fee.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.
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Posted on September 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in educing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Long Island Rep. Laura Gillen Is Taking Aim At Criminals Who Have Been Caught Staging Car Accidents.
Time for a Federal Crime of Insurance Fraud
The accidents may be shams, but the felonies would be real. On Thursday, Gillen (D-NY) introduced the Stop Auto Fraud Act of 2026, which would make the “crash for cash” practice a federal offense punishable by up to 10 years behind bars, with sentence enhancements for smash-ups causing injury or death.
Rep. Laura Gillen is hoping her bipartisan bill will become law to give prosecutors a federal crime to prosecute cash for crash ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
