Rescission Appropriate When Insured Lies on Application
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gU2gHyfv, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gYpWwNrw and at https://lnkd.in/gTm--tTM and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4827
Progressive Michigan Insurance Company (Progressive) appealed the order denying its motion for summary disposition and ordering reformation of plaintiff's, Janice Sherman's, automobile insurance policy even when reformation was not requested by Sherman.
In Janice Sherman v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Company and JOHN DOE, No. 364393, Court of Appeals of Michigan (June 20, 2024) the Court of Appeals explained the importance of the equitable remedy of rescission.
BACKGROUND FACTS
On November 12, 2020, Sherman applied to Progressive for a no-fault insurance policy for two vehicles-a 2006 Cadillac DTS sedan and a 1993 Chrysler New Yorker sedan. In the application, she identified her address as 16845 Tremlett Drive, Clinton Township, MI 48035, and confirmed that the vehicles were garaged at this address. The application also failed to disclose the total number of resident relatives, 14 years of age or older, and "all regular drivers" of her vehicles then residing in her household.
Progressive's litigation underwriting specialist, Janeen Copic, submitted an affidavit stating that Progressive would have charged a 7.7% higher premium had Sherman accurately disclosed the number of drivers and resident-relatives at the reported address, and a 75.5% increased premium had Sherman disclosed her permanent Detroit residence.
THE ACCIDENT
On July 14, 2021, Sherman was a passenger in one of the vehicles when it was hit from behind by John Doe. She was injured in this accident and asked Progressive for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits. Progressive refused while rescinding the policy ab initio because of misrepresentations in her application. Sherman lied about the location where the cars were garaged and other individuals resided with her who she did not list on her application. Progressive estimated that, had Sherman included this additional information, it would have increased her premium by 83.2%.
THE SUIT
Sherman then sued Doe and Progressive claiming it unlawfully refused to pay PIP benefits and had breached her insurance contract. Sherman claimed the remedy should be tailored to the equities of the situation and needed to produce a fair result for all parties. The trial ordered that the policy be reformed to reflect the "insurance premium that [Progressive] believes it would have been entitled to had the insured listed Detroit as the residence.".
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Summary disposition is appropriate if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
An insurer has a reasonable right to expect honesty in the application for insurance. Indeed, it is well settled that an insurer is entitled to rescind a policy ab initio on the basis of a material misrepresentation made in an application for no-fault insurance. A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would have rejected the risk or charged an increased premium and would not have issued the same contract had it been given the correct information.
Even if fraud is not established rescission is justified in cases of innocent misrepresentation if a party relies upon the misstatement, because otherwise the party responsible for the misstatement would be unjustly enriched if he were not held accountable for his misrepresentation.
There was no reason in law or policy for the burden of such a risk to be placed on the insurer in preference to the insured who made the intentional material misrepresentations. The trial court's balance of the equities should have revealed misconduct by Sherman, but none by Progressive.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred by failing to recognize this distinction. By ordering the policy reformed, the trial court placed the financial burden of paying PIP benefits on Progressive, notwithstanding the fact that Sherman obtained those very same benefits by way of fraud. The trial court erred when it ordered reformation, rather than rescission and its order was reversed.
ZALMA OPINION
Rescission is an ancient equitable remedy that exists because it would be unfair to allow one party to a contract to profit from fraud in the obtaining of a contract of insurance. Sherman lied in the application requesting an offer of insurance about the location and available drivers which, had she told the truth, would have resulted in much higher premiums. The trial court trying to be fair wrongfully refused rescission but used another equitable remedy: reformation to require the victim of Sherman's fraud, Progressive, with the medical expenses. Neither Ms. Sherman nor anyone should be allowed to profit from their fraud.
(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 X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
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 a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
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 a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
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 ...
Plaintiff Representing Herself Failed to Allege Jurisdiction
Adverse Rulings Alone Almost Never Establish Bias
Post number 5392
Posted on July 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Decheri Hafer v. Farmers Insurance Agency, No. 1:22-cv-0808 KES SKO, United States District Court, E.D. California (June 30, 2026) DeCheri Hafer, proceeding pro se, sued Farmers Insurance Agency alleging perjury, fraud, insurance fraud, and breach of contract.
After screening, the magistrate judge found the complaint deficient and allowed amendment. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint objecting to all magistrate judges, while defendant moved to dismiss.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was wholly unsubstantiated. Plaintiff did not object and instead sought default. The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissed the action without prejudice, denied default, entered judgment, and closed the case.
More than three years later, Plaintiff moved under Rule 60(b)(4) ...
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
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 a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
Coverage for Damage to Vacant Dwelling Limited
Post number 5388
Vandalism Damage to Vacant Dwelling Excluded
Posted on July 7, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Tyrone Williamson v. Farmers Insurance Co., 2026-Ohio-2530, C. A. No. 30717, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery (July 2, 2026) Tyrone Williamson owned a duplex in Dayton, Ohio that he rented as two separate units. While the units were unoccupied by tenants, break-ins occurred in February, March, and April 2024, causing damage to doors, windows, walls, plumbing, flooring, fencing, lighting, a ceiling fan, grass, and other parts of the property, and resulting in the theft of items including tools, generators, a power washer, an air-conditioning unit, car wheels, and a radio.
Farmers Insurance paid approximately $17,000 for some damage from the first break-in but denied other claimed losses, including additional property damage, stolen personal property, and lost rent.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Farmers Insurance on Williamson’s ...
