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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
