Rescission is a Remedy for Fraud in an Application for Insurance
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g2b9zTwB, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/guvjUW7i and at https://lnkd.in/gtrd6uHQ and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Post 5018
Beach Cruiser, LLC and Flyway Management, LLC own and manage multiple rental units. In 2021, Plaintiff Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”) issued Defendants an insurance policy (the “Policy”). The Policy covered bodily injury liability in connection with their units but excluded coverage in the event that Defendants provided “incorrect, false, inaccurate or incomplete information” in their application for insurance.
In Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Beach Cruiser, LLC, et al., No. 1:22-cv-10354-GHW, United States District Court, S.D. New York (March 6, 2025) the court applied New York’s law of rescission.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”) is an insurer, Defendant Beach Cruiser, LLC (“Beach Cruiser”) owns multiple residential properties and rents them out to tenants. It owns a residential property located at 146 President Street, Unit C, Charleston, South Carolina (the “Property”). Defendant Flyway Management, LLC (“Flyway,” and together with Beach Cruiser, “Defendants”) managed the Property on behalf of Beach Cruiser at all relevant times.. Nonparty USI Insurance Services (“USI”) served as an insurance broker for Beach Cruiser with respect to the Policy.
THE REPRESENTATIONS
Defendants’ application for the Policy checked “No” in response to the question “Are any properties rented by the day or by the week?”
Contrary to the statement in the application Defendants had been renting some of their units by the day or by the week for years.
THE ACCIDENT & INJURIES
On July 23, 2022, two of the tenants allegedly fell from the second floor of the Property after a porch railing collapsed. Both tenants sought damages from Defendants for their alleged injuries. Defendants claim coverage under the Policy. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ claims are excluded from coverage because Defendants misrepresented the Property’s rental status in their application.
INSURANCE EXCLUSIONARY CONDITION
The principal question before the Court was whether New York Insurance Law § 3105(b) (“Section 3105(b)”) modifies the parties’ agreed-upon exclusion of coverage based on Defendants’ misrepresentations. The Court concluded that it does not. It does not apply where, as here, an insured’s claim is excluded from the insurance contract by prior mutual agreement.
The Policy includes coverage for, among other things, “bodily injury liability” up to $1,000,000 per occurrence subject to the Policy’s terms and conditions. For purposes of an endorsement: “the Application(s) includes, without limitation, any application forms and any other forms, documents, or information submitted to us in connection with or relating to issuance of this policy. For purposes of this endorsement, the Application(s) is a part of this policy and is incorporated herein.”
Beach Cruiser checked the “No” box in response to the question “Are any properties rented by the day or by the week?” However, Beach Cruiser had been renting the Property through Vrbo, an online platform for short-term vacation rentals, since 2018.
On January 25, 2022, Beach Cruiser executed a three-day rental contract through Vrbo for a party to stay at the Property from July 21 to July 24, 2022. The party included Walter Patrick Humphrey and Jonathan Charles Slade.
Mr. Humphrey filed an action in South Carolina state court against Beach Cruiser and Flyway arising from his alleged injuries (the “Humphrey Action”). Mr. Slade sent Flyway a demand letter alleging various causes of action arising from his alleged injuries.
On November 14, 2022, Mt. Hawley sent Beach Cruiser a letter stating that it was rescinding the Policy.
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is appropriate here because the Policy unambiguously excludes coverage in connection with the July 23, 2022 incident. There is only one reasonable reading of Question 3 in the Application. Defendants’ response to Question 3 was plainly false. And the Endorsement unambiguously excludes coverage if the insured provided false answers in the Application.
The Policy unambiguously excludes coverage for Defendants’ claims. New York courts have held that, where there has been a misrepresentation by an insured, the insurance company can avoid liability on the policy by showing that the misrepresentation was material.
Because enforcing the Endorsement according to its terms is not inconsistent with Section 3105(b), the Endorsement is not, as Defendants and Nationwide argue, “void . . . as a matter of public policy.”
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED and Defendants’ and Nationwide’s motions for summary judgment was DENIED. The Court declared that Plaintiff Mt. Hawley Insurance Company has no obligation under the Policy to defend or indemnify Defendants Beach Cruiser, LLC and Flyway Management, LLC in connection with the July 23, 2022 incident.
Accordingly, because the Policy unambiguously excludes claims in the event of a misrepresentation in Defendants’ application, and because Defendants’ application unambiguously misrepresented the rental status of the Property, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED and Defendants’ and Nationwide’s motions for summary judgment were DENIED.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance is a contract of good faith that requires each party to the contract to act fairly and in good faith to each other. When one party, seeking insurance, lies about the risks faced by the insured and the property that is the subject of the proposed insurance contract, he, she or it, has misrepresented a material fact and the law of equity requires the policy to be declared void.
(c) 2025 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
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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Alleged Defamatory Statements Must be Of and Concerning Plaintiffs
Posted on October 16, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Prove Defamation the Statement Must be Of and Concerning the Plaintiffs
Post 4867
In Michael Moloney and Sergio Cantu v. United Services Automobile Association, No. 04-25-00519-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio (October 14, 2026) Michael Moloney and Sergio Cantu appealed from the trial court’s granting of a traditional motion for summary judgment in favor of United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) on their defamation claim.
BACKGROUND
Moloney and Cantu sued USAA for defamation, alleging that they are the principals of Informed Roofing & Restoration, LLC (“Informed Roofing”), which is primarily engaged in the residential roofing repair and replacement business, and that an employee or agent of USAA had made false and defamatory statements to the San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”) concerning them.
Specifically, Moloney and Cantu alleged that an employee of ...
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 20 Subscribe to ZIFL here https://lnkd.in/gfpn78FM
Posted on October 15, 2026 by Barry Zalma
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud.
ZIFL is published 24 times a year is written by Barry Zalma.
It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at https://lnkd.in/gVT5G9s
Six Insane Fraud Schemes the Trump Administration Has Uncovered Stealing from the taxpayer has now become a multi-billion-dollar industry in America. Obamacare has been a magnet for scammers.
Florida Insurance Agent Pleads Guilty in $300,000 Premium Finance Scheme
Daniel Raney, 41, who managed Raney Insurance and Raney Ventures in Pensacola, was arrested after AFCO Direct.
RIFE WITH FRAUD ALLOWS DEMANDS TO ESTABLISH RESTITUTION
Six Insane Fraud Schemes the Trump Administration Has Uncovered
Stealing from the taxpayer has now become a multi-billion-dollar industry in America – and the ...
Sentence for Stealing from Veterans Administration Reasonably Considers State Insurance Fraud & Arson Convictions
Post 4863
Posted on October 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In United States Of America v. Anthony Curtis Brewer, No. 26-10745, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 8, 2026) Anthony Curtis Brewer became the fiduciary for an incapacitated recipient of Department of Veterans Affairs survivor benefits and agreed to use her funds solely for her care and support without commingling them with his own.
The VA determined that he misused $67,232.33 and removed him as fiduciary in 2022. Brewer pleaded guilty to theft of more than $1,000 in government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. At sentencing, the district court attributed $53,567 in loss to him, producing an advisory Guidelines range of 15 to 21 months.
Citing the victim’s vulnerability, Brewer’s attempts to avoid responsibility, and his other fraudulent conduct — including state convictions for arson and insurance fraud — the court ...
