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
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 ...
