Prior Conviction for Insurance Fraud Material to Decision of Insurer
Post 4857
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gKkrQzDu, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gssJGShm and at https://lnkd.in/gVktgyeY and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Jose Palma appealed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Allied Trust Insurance Co that found a lie about a prior insurance fraud conviction was a material misrepresentation causing the insurer to rescind the policy.
In Jose Palma v. Allied Trust Insurance Co., No. 14-23-00063-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District (August 13, 2024) the Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Palma purchased an insurance policy for his home with Allied. During the policy period, there was a fire at Palma’s home. Palma submitted an insurance claim under the policy only to be faced with the discover of a prior conviction for insurance fraud that was not disclosed on his application for insurance. Allied rescinded the policy stating that Palma’s misrepresentation rendered the policy void and that it would not have insured Palma had Palma disclosed his prior insurance fraud conviction.
Palma sued Allied for breach of contract, and a litany of bad faith charges. Allied answered and asserted the defense that it rescinded the policy because of Palma’s “material misrepresentation” among other affirmative defenses.
THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Allied moved for summary judgment concluding that the policy issued to Palma is void due to Palma’s material misrepresentation in the policy application that he was never convicted of insurance fraud. Allied argued that Palma misrepresented material facts and in support of these elements, Allied submitted five exhibits: the policy application; the policy; the “DocuSign certification of completion;” correspondence with insurance agent; and Palma’s criminal conviction for insurance fraud.
The trial court rendered a final summary judgment in favor of Allied.
Misrepresentation in Insurance Application
Palma argued that whether a misrepresentation is material is a question of fact both under the Insurance Code and common law and, therefore, summary judgment was improper. Allied countered that there was ample, undisputed evidence in the record to show that Palma’s misrepresentation was material and no evidence to the contrary.
ANALYSIS
The policy application included a statement that Palma agreed the policy would be void “if such information is false or misleading in any way that would affect the premium charged or eligibility of the risk based on company underwriting guidelines.”
The purpose of a summary judgment is to provide a method of summarily terminating a case when it clearly appears that only a question of law is involved and that there is no genuine issue of fact. Various elements of claims may be a “question of fact” where there is an actual, genuine dispute between the parties about the facts. However, when no genuine issues of material facts exist, a court may properly grant summary judgment because there are no facts to find.
Allied submitted its undisputed evidence establishing its affirmative defense. Palma did not respond with evidence to dispute the facts as stated by Allied.
Put simply, the plain language of the statute indicates that a policy provision rendering the policy void or voidable for any false statement is a defense if the insurer demonstrates the misrepresentation was material to the risk or contributed to the contingency or event on which the policy became payable or due. None of these requirements obviates the insurer’s ability to obtain summary judgment on its defense when the facts are undisputed.
ZALMA OPINION
A convicted insurance criminal lied on an application for insurance, obtained a policy based on the lie, only to have his home catch fire and burn resulting in a major claim. The insurer learned of the conviction by searching public records and, based on the lie, rescinded the policy from its inception because of the material misrepresentation about the plaintiff’s criminal record and prior conviction for insurance fraud. The court affirmed the rescission.
(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/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
