Lie on an Application About Primary Residence is Ground for Rescission
Post 4896
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g2B5UJhB and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Plaintiff Homesite Insurance Company's (Homesite) moved for Summary Judgment seeking a judicial declaration that it is entitled to rescission of Defendant Zhen Jiang's homeowners' insurance policy and enter summary judgment in its favor on Mr. Jiang's bad faith counterclaims.
In Homesite Insurance Company v. Zhen Jiang, No. CV-21-00554-TUC-JGZ, United States District Court, D. Arizona (September 16, 2024) the USDC explained an insurer's right to rescission.
INTRODUCTION
The USDC described this case as "an insurance fraud case."
Homesite asserts that Mr. Jiang misrepresented that the house located at 7617 East Snyder Road, Tucson, AZ 85750 (the Property) was his primary residence. Homesite relied on Mr. Jiang's representation in issuing the homeowners' insurance policy (the Policy); and Mr. Jiang's misrepresentation was material because Homesite does not, and would not, insure a vacant home.
Mr. Jiang owns properties in Arizona and Texas. In early 2018, Mr. Jiang bought the Property, a five-bedroom single-family residence located on four acres at 7617 East Snyder Road. The Property had been vacant since the previous owners lost the Property to foreclosure in 2014.
Mr. Jiang's Insurance Application And Policy
In November 2019, Mr. Jiang applied for homeowners' insurance for the Property. In his application, Mr. Jiang represented that the Property was his primary residence and that the information provided in the application was truthful and accurate.
Homesite warned Mr. Jiang, after accepting him as an insured, to review the Declarations page and check the description of the dwelling, and occupancy and if any of this information needs to be corrected, Jiang must advise Homesite within 30 days of receipt.
The Pima County Sheriff's March 21, 2020 Report
On March 21, 2020, the Pima County Sheriff's Department responded to a call of vandalism at the Property. Vandals had set off fireworks inside the Property, graffitied and put holes in the walls, started fires, and broke numerous windows.
Mr. Jiang's Neighbor's Statements
The March 21, 2020 call to police was made by neighbor Morgan Hay stated that the damage to the Property possibly occurred over New Years. Mr. Hay informed officers that Mr. Jiang “would show up from time to time and ask Mr. Hay to check on the house periodically; however, nobody had occupied that residence since it was foreclosed upon in 2014.” Similar responses were testified to by multiple neighbors.
Mr. Jiang's Statements Regarding Occupancy
Mr. Jiang provided numerous inconsistent statements as to when, if ever, he lived at the Property. In his Opposition, he states that he lived in the home from late 2019 until early 2020, and that the home was not vacant for more than 60 days prior to the March 21, 2020 fire.
DISCUSSION
Fraudulent misstatements, omissions, or concealment of facts can be established by proving either legal fraud or actual fraud. Legal fraud exists if the question asked in an insurance application: (1) is one where the facts are within the personal knowledge of the insured; (2) are such that the insurer would naturally have contemplated that the answers represented the actual facts; and (3) the answers are false. Legal fraud does not require an intent to deceive.
Homesite established that the Property was not Mr. Jiang's primary residence. No reasonable juror could conclude otherwise based upon the evidence that he lived elsewhere, the condition of the Property, the reports of his neighbors, and the fact that he was apparently unaware of the vandalism occurring on the Property until late October 2020.
Mr. Jiang is not credible for the additional reason that he concealed his lease at the 7th Street Apartment during discovery.
Homesite Did Not Act In Bad Faith In Investigating And Processing Mr. Jiang's Claim.
The Court will enter summary judgement in favor of Homesite on Mr. Jiang's bad faith counterclaims. The USDC concluded that Homesite is entitled to rescission of the Policy and entry of judgment on Mr. Jiang's counterclaims.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance is a business of utmost good faith where neither party to the contract will do anything to deprive the other of the benefits of the contract. Mr. Jiang lied on his application and continued to lie as he pursed his claim. The lies were material since the insurer would never issue a homeowners policy to a vacant property, especially one that had been vacant and vandalized before he bought the property. This liar will not prosper from his fraud and the court should refer Mr. Jiang to the office of the US Attorney to prosecute him for 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 and 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 X @bzalma;Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
