Insurers Can Rescind Policy When its Agent Lies on Behalf of the Insured
Post 5042
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gie_FvHk, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gakzi73n and at https://lnkd.in/g-GpQr3N, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Some years ago, my solution to a mid-life crisis was to buy a custom made replica of the Studebaker Avanti, a fiberglass sports car powered by a 5 Liter V-8.
After I bought my dream car I found it was almost impossible to insure because the manufacturer only made 400 a year. My insurer cancelled me because it could not calculate an appropriate premium. I went to my neighborhood direct writer who had no problem insuring the car. The agent filled out a lengthy application form and handed it to me to sign.
Much to the agent’s surprise I actually read the application and found he had marked the form showing “no cancellations.” I had told him of the cancellation and asked why he had put a false statement in the application.
“It’s not important,” he responded, “you weren’t cancelled for cause.”
The application only asked if I was cancelled so I insisted he correct the application. The insurance was issued. Had I allowed the application to go through as filled out and had a claim I would have faced a situation where I might have had no coverage. Of course, if I could prove that the agent of the direct writer had the knowledge of the prior cancellation I could have defeated a claim of rescission, but with difficulty. If I did, the agent would have found himself liable to the insurer for any claim it paid to me.
In most states a mutual mistake of material fact, a unilateral mistake of material fact, the breach of a warranty, a material concealment, or a material misrepresentation can all be grounds for rescission. When an insurer is deceived, regardless of the intent of the deceiver, the remedy of rescission is available to the insurer. Rescission is an equitable remedy that was created by ancient ecclesiastical courts in England. When an insurance policy is rescinded it places the parties back in the position they were in before the contract date. The insured gets the premium back and the insurer gets back the policy as if there was never a contract.
Insurers usually use the remedy with care. As one court put it after agreeing that a rescission was proper: "Our conclusion here should not result in an assumption by insurers that policy liability can, with impunity, be avoided or delayed by assertion of a claim for rescission. That is a tactic which is fraught with peril. Where no valid ground for rescission exists, the threat or attempt to seek such relief may itself constitute a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing which is implied in the policy." (Emphasis Added) [Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Company v. Levon Sogomonian, 198 Cal. App. 3d 169 (1988)]
In a decision of the California Court of Appeal a man named Mitchell was the named insured of an insurance policy issued by United National Insurance Company whose commercial building was destroyed by an arson fire. United National discovered several misrepresentations in Mitchell’s application for insurance, obtained the advice of counsel and rescinded the policy. Mitchell sued. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer because the application made material representations upon which United National’s underwriter relied in deciding to insure Mitchell which included matters that should have been learned by his agent and avoided. For example, Mitchell misrepresented:
1. The property was not owned by Mr. Mitchell but by a family trust.
2. The property was vacant.
3. The property had been previously insured by the FAIR Plan, an insurer of last resort, who had cancelled.
4. The property had been condemned by the city. [James E. Mitchell, Individually and as Trustee of the Mitchell Family Trust v. United National Insurance Company, 127 Cal.App.4th 457, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 627 (2005)]
The trial court granted summary judgment in United National’s favor and the Court of Appeal affirmed finding “as a matter of law on the undisputed facts that the information sought by United’s underwriter and denied to it by plaintiff’s false answers and omissions was material to United’s decision to provide insurance coverage.”
Insurance Agent Knowingly Presents a False Application
The investigation of the broker, and the broker’s actions can provide an insurer with an opportunity to recover losses due to fraud from a person with assets rather than a fraud perpetrator whose only source of income may have been the fraudulent claim. The Fourth District California Court of Appeal, in Century Sur. Co. v. Crosby Ins., Inc., 124 Cal. App. 4th 116 (2004), allowed an insurer to seek damages from the insurance broker who submitted to it a fraudulent and false application for insurance.
The case established that Crosby Insurance Inc. submitted to Century Surety Co. an insurance application for Baroco West Inc. The application classified Baroco as a “drywall” contractor. Century issued a policy in reliance upon the facts represented in the application. A construction defect action was filed against Baroco as the “general” contractor. Century undertook the defense but later withdrew after discovering Baroco’s insurance application contained false information. Century sued Crosby for losses caused by Crosby’s alleged fraud, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The application incorrectly classified Baroco and was supported by a forged letter from Crosby’s office stating that Baroco had no losses for two years.
Crosby argued that Century’s exclusive remedy was against the insured, Baroco. The trial court agreed and sustained the demurrers without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court decision. The Court of Appeal concluded that liability may be imposed on a broker in an insurer’s action to recover losses caused by a broker’s fraud in the application process. It also found that public policy supports imposing a duty on brokers to prepare applications with reasonable care. Failure to use reasonable care can result in the broker paying for the insurer’s loss.
To avoid litigation from the client of an insurance agent or broker when the clients’ policy is rescinded, the insurance agent or broker must, when obtaining an application for insurance, explain to the proposed insured the importance of truthful and accurate responses to the questions. The agent or broker should never make subjective decisions on the importance of facts to a particular insurer.
The prudent agent or broker should ask the proposed insured each and every question on the application for insurance. None should be skipped even if they seem to have no relevance to the particular insured. The agent or broker should also insist that the insured read the application and affirm that all of the answers are correct before it is signed. If the insured refuses, or cannot read English, the agent or broker should read the application to the insured or have it translated into a language the applicant understands. The application process should be noted in the agent or brokers log and the insured should be asked to sign the application.
The insurance adjuster, needing to complete a thorough investigation as required by fair claims practices statutes and Regulations, work as a regular practice, asking each insured every question on the application for insurance.
If there is a discrepancy between the statements made by the insured at the time of the investigation and those made by the application the adjuster must not assume the investigation is complete. The adjuster must go to the offices of the agent or broker and obtain a complete copy of the file and ask the agent or broker if he knew of the true facts as related by the insured. The adjuster must collect the contract between the agent or broker and the insurer to clarify their relationship.
Finally, the adjuster should submit the findings of the investigation to competent coverage counsel for advice on whether the remedy of rescission or voidance is available to the insurer.
(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 @zalma; 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 ...