Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
April 07, 2025
Fairly Debatable Attempt to Rescind Not Bad Faith

Rescission of Life Insurance Policy Fails
Post 5039

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gdW5iHgV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.

USAA Life Insurance Company’s moved the USDC Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike.

In Ronda G. Williams v. USAA Life Insurance Company, No. 1:24-cv-00301-BLW, United States District Court, D. Idaho (April 1, 2025) the USDC eliminated the bad faith cause of action and allowed the breach of contract case.

BACKGROUND

Ronda Williams alleged her husband, Burton Williams, applied for a 20-year term life insurance policy for $750,000.00 from USAA on December 1, 2021. Shortly thereafter, USAA issued a life insurance policy with an effective date of February 15, 2022. As a part of his application, Mr. Williams signed an agreement that he would “.. .notify USAA Life Insurance Company if, after signing the statement but before the delivery of the policy, I seek medical consultation for any reason…”

Mrs. Williams alleged that Mr. Williams received a neurological exam in January 2022 after feeling lightheaded and dizzy at the gym. The exam was benign, he was treated for dehydration and sent home. He then followed up with his primary care physician on February 2, 2022, who did not have any concerns about his medical condition but scheduled an MRI for February 17, 2022. On February 18, 2022, Mr. Williams received the results of the MRI, which indicated he had a brain tumor.

About a year later, in June 2023, Mr. Williams died.

Mrs. Williams, as the beneficiary, notified USAA of his death and made a claim on his insurance policy. On December 26, 2023, USAA sent Mrs. Williams a letter stating that it was rescinding the insurance policy from the date of inception based upon material misrepresentations made in Mr. Williams’ application. Mrs. Williams sued. Mrs. Williams filed her Third Amended Complaint alleging a single claim for breach of contract and insurance bad faith. USAA again moved to dismiss the operative complaint for failure to state a claim.

ANALYSIS

Breach of Contract Claim.

Mrs. Williams alleged USAA breached its contract when it failed to pay her the amount due under the life insurance policy. USAA argued that Mrs. Williams cannot show any breach of contract because it rescinded the life insurance policy within the two-year statutory contestability period.

The rescission fell within the two-year contestability period.

Even considering USAA’s affirmative defense, it does not require dismissal of Mrs. Williams’ complaint at this stage of the litigation. To rescind the policy, USAA would first need to prove Mr. Williams made an incorrect statement on his application. Then the company would have to prove it would not have issued the policy had it known the “true facts.”

USAA contends Mr. Williams’ responses to several questions on his application were incorrect. Mr. Williams answered “no” to each of these questions. While these responses may have been rendered inaccurate in light of his hospital visit and follow up visit with his primary care provider, these inaccuracies do not necessarily mean rescission is appropriate.

To rescind, USAA must show it would not have issued the policy had the statements been accurate. There is nothing on the face of the Third Amended Complaint or in the material incorporated by reference that permits the Court to conclude on a motion to dismiss that the misrepresentations were material.

An insurer may establish materiality as a matter of law by presenting documentation concerning its underwriting practices. Absent similarly conclusive facts in the Third Amended Complaint or incorporated by reference, the Court cannot conclude the misrepresentations, as a matter of law, were material. Accordingly, USAA’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim is denied.

Insurance Bad Faith Claim.

To demonstrate bad faith under Idaho law, a plaintiff must show:

1. the insurer intentionally and unreasonably denied or withheld payment;
2. the claim was not fairly debatable;
3. the denial or failure to pay was not the result of a good faith mistake; and
4. the resulting harm is not fully compensable by contract damages.

An insurer does not act in bad faith by challenging the validity of a “fairly debatable” claim, or when delay results from honest mistakes.

Mrs. Williams did not adequately allege an insurance bad faith claim. The denial of an insurance claim and a claimant’s disagreement with the decision does not automatically equate to bad faith. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Mrs. Williams’s bad faith claim.

The Court will dismiss the bad faith insurance claim without leave to amend.

ZALMA OPINION

Rescission is an equitable remedy that requires, rather than a money judgment, fairness. If an insurance contract is acquired by a material misrepresentation or the concealment of a material fact, the court will order the contract rescinded and both parties would be placed in the same position they were in before the contract was issued. USAA failed to include in its motion to dismiss evidence that established that the misrepresentations were material. The court dismissed the bad faith cause of action because the issue was fairly debatable and at trial USAA may bring the underwriters to prove materiality and if they don’t they will pay Mrs. Williams.

(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

00:09:43
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
March 11, 2026
Public Adjusters Attempt to Represent an Insured Subject to APA Clause

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 ...

00:08:05
placeholder
March 11, 2026
Public Adjusters Attempt to Represent an Insured Subject to APA Clause

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 ...

00:08:05
placeholder
March 10, 2026
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish

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...

00:07:28
placeholder
10 hours ago
Portable Storage Containers are not Buildings

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 ...

post photo preview
10 hours ago
Failure to Provide Well-Pled Facts Defeats Most of Action

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 ...

post photo preview
March 19, 2026
Failure to Provide Well-Pled Facts Defeats Most of Action

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 ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals