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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
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 ...
Sentence for Stealing from Veterans Administration Reasonably Considers State Insurance Fraud & Arson Convictions
Post 4863
Posted on October 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In United States Of America v. Anthony Curtis Brewer, No. 26-10745, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 8, 2026) Anthony Curtis Brewer became the fiduciary for an incapacitated recipient of Department of Veterans Affairs survivor benefits and agreed to use her funds solely for her care and support without commingling them with his own.
The VA determined that he misused $67,232.33 and removed him as fiduciary in 2022. Brewer pleaded guilty to theft of more than $1,000 in government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. At sentencing, the district court attributed $53,567 in loss to him, producing an advisory Guidelines range of 15 to 21 months.
Citing the victim’s vulnerability, Brewer’s attempts to avoid responsibility, and his other fraudulent conduct — including state convictions for arson and insurance fraud — the court ...
Title Insurance Only Insures Real Property
Posted on October 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
When a Seller Advised it Could Not Obtain Title to the Home Fraud Can’t be Proved
A Manufactured Home is Personal Property Until it Becomes Real Property
Post 4862
In Dale Johnson and Rose Johnson, Husband and Wife v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., and Lennar Mortgage, LLC; Low Va Rates, LLC; Sandpoint Title Insurance, Inc.; Village Capital & Investment, LLC; and David Cassel, Engineer Agent; and Unknown Does 1-50, inclusively, No. 53126, Court of Appeals of Idaho (October 9, 2026) Dale and Rose Johnson purchased Idaho real property in 2012 with a manufactured home on it. Their purchase addendum acknowledged that the seller could not obtain title to the home, that evidence of title and an ALTA-7 endorsement might not be available, and that they accepted the home “as is.”
In 2020, after a HELOC application was denied, the Johnsons learned that the home had been wrecked and decertified in 2004 and that its 2006 conversion to real ...
Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for ...
