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 ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
