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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
