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/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 ...
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 ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
