Failure to Tell the Truth on an Insurance Application Voids Entire Policy as if it Never Existed
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dNY7bhPd, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/dXAEHycy and at https://lnkd.in/dVefzJ3m and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4814
Ms. Stephens demanded that Defendant Great American Assurance Company (“Great American”) provide legal representation for her under an insurance policy (the “Policy”) it issued related to a professional disciplinary hearing and Great American refused and asserted that she lied on the application for insurance causing the policy to be void.
In Accent Consulting Group, Incorporated, Brenda Marie Stephens v. Great American Assurance Company – Great American Assurance Company v. Accent Consulting Group, Incorporated, Brenda Marie Stephens, No. 1:22-cv-01767-JMS-CSW, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (May 20, 2024) resolved the dispute.
CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Ms. Stephens purchased a claims-made and reported Real Estate Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance Policy (the “Policy“). To receive coverage, the Policy required Ms. Stephens to report in writing any claims or disciplinary actions against her during the policy period or extended reporting period. Although the Policy provided for reimbursement of “reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in responding to a Disciplinary Action,” the Policy specifically stated that Great American “shall not be obligated to defend any Disciplinary Action.” The Policy ran from April 2020 to April 2021.
The Consumer Complaint
During the first Policy period, in October 2020, Ms. Stephens agreed to and did perform a “desktop appraisal” of an Indiana single-family home (the “Property“). A “desktop appraisal” is one that is virtual, not requiring a “physical inspection of the property by the appraiser.”
The next month, in November 2020, the Property’s owners filed a complaint (the “Consumer Complaint“) against Ms. Stephens with the Office of the Indiana Attorney General (“Indiana OAG“). The Consumer Complaint alleged that Ms. Stephens’ appraisal was “20% below contracted sales price and thus the sale was lost.”
The Insurance Renewal Application
Less than six months after the Complaint and Indiana OAG correspondence, on March 16, 2021, Ms. Stephens applied to renew Accent’s insurance Policy with Great American. The Renewal Application asked whether Ms. Stephens was “aware of any of the following in the past 12 months: . . . [c]omplaint, disciplinary action, investigation or license suspension/revocation by any regulatory authority.” She responded in the negative.
The Complaint Before the Real Estate Appraiser Licensure and Certification Board
Later that autumn, on November 1, 2021, the Indiana OAG filed a complaint against Ms. Stephens before the Real Estate Appraiser Licensure and Certification Board (“REAB“). The Indiana OAG eventually demanded “disciplinary sanctions.”
The Request for Insurance Coverage
After the filing of the REAB Complaint, Ms. Stephens requested legal representation from Great American. Great American denied the application because Ms. Stephens received the Consumer Complaint in November 2020, during the first Policy period, but did not report it until November 2021, the following year during the renewed Policy period.
This Litigation
Because she was denied insurance coverage, she sued Great American for breach of contract and bad faith. Great American sought to add a claim for rescission of the Policy.
Great American noted Ms. Stephens’s admission that “as of November 23, 2020, [she] had knowledge of, and was aware of, the allegations of the” Consumer Complaint. The Court granted the motion to amend, noting that Ms. Stephens “fail[ed] to address or even allege diligence or delay on the part of Great American,” and “[n]owhere in [her] twenty-two paged response [was] there any analysis under the rules applicable” to the motion.
DISCUSSION
Great American argued that Ms. Stephens answered on her Renewal Application that she was not aware of any “[c]omplaint, disciplinary action, investigation or license suspension/revocation by any regulatory authority.” Great American argued that Ms. Stephens’s answer was “false” and “material,” entitling it to rescind the Policy.
Great American argued that “(1) [Ms.] Stephens’ answer [on] the Renewal Application was false because, prior to executing the application . . . [Ms.] Stephens knew about the Consumer Complaint and the Indiana OAG’s resulting investigation; and (2) this false statement was material to the risk insured by the Policy.” It also contended that Ms. Stephens’s false statement and nondisclosure was material and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In this case, the Consumer Complaint led directly to the Indiana OAG investigation, the Indiana OAG investigation led directly to the REAB Complaint. Regardless of Ms. Stephens’ intent, which Indiana law disregards, she made a material misrepresentation. Her misrepresentation entitled Great American to rescind the policy.
Great American Assurance’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was granted. Conversely, Ms. Stephens’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied. The court ordered Great American to return the premium paid and rescinded the policy from its inception.
ZALMA OPINION
When a person misrepresents a material fact on an application for insurance an insurer may rescind the policy from its inception, return the premium and deal with the policy as if it never existed. Ms. Stephens lied on the application and that fact was the basis for the defense of rescission. Rescission is an equitable remedy that concludes it is not fair to require an insurer to defend or indemnify an insured who obtained the insurance by false statements on an application.
(c) 2024 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 my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; 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 – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act
Post 5002
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...
Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.
In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:
1 whether the ...
Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.
Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission
This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).
In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.
The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...
Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER
In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.
FACTS
In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.
Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...
Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE
In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.
FACTS
The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not
favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.
The circuit court ...
