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 Williams cannot show any breach of contract because it rescinded the life insurance policy within the two-year statutory contestability period.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
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 ...
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
