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 When an insurance policy is rescinded it places the parties back in the position they were in before the contract date.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
Concurrent Cause Doctrine Does Not Apply When all Causes are Excluded
Post 5119
Death by Drug Overdose is Excluded
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geQtybUJ and at https://lnkd.in/g_WNfMCZ, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Southern Insurance Company Of Virginia v. Justin D. Mitchell, et al., No. 3:24-cv-00198, United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division (October 10, 2024) Southern Insurance Company of Virginia sought a declaratory judgment regarding its duty to defend William Mitchell in a wrongful death case pending in California state court.
KEY POINTS
1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted in part and denied in part.
2. Duty to Defend: The court found that the Plaintiff has no duty to defend William Mitchell in the California case due to a specific exclusion in the insurance policy.
3. Duty to Indemnify: The court could not determine at this stage whether the Plaintiff had a duty to ...
GEICO Sued Fraudulent Health Care Providers Under RICO and Settled with the Defendants Who Failed to Pay Settlement
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDpGzdR9 and at https://lnkd.in/gbDfikRG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Post 5119
Default of Settlement Agreement Reduced to Judgment
In Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico Indemnity Company, Geico General Insurance Company, and Geico Casualty Company v. Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D., DEO Medical Services, P.C., and Healthwise Medical Associates, P.C., No. 24-CV-5287 (PKC) (JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (July 9, 2025)
Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Company and other GEICO companies (“GEICO”) sued Defendants Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D. (“Onyema”), et al (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging breach of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties to resolve a previous, fraud-related lawsuit (the “Settlement Agreement”). GEICO moved the court for default judgment against ...
ZIFL – Volume 29, Issue 14
Post 5118
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geddcnHj and at https://lnkd.in/g_rB9_th, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
You can read the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://lnkd.in/giaSdH29
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
The Historical Basis of Punitive Damages
It is axiomatic that when a claim is denied for fraud that the fraudster will sue for breach of contract and the tort of bad faith and seek punitive damages.
The award of punitive-type damages was common in early legal systems and was mentioned in religious law as early as the Book of Exodus. Punitive-type damages were provided for in Babylonian law nearly 4000 years ago in the Code of Hammurabi.
You can read this article and the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ZIFL-07-15-2025.pdf
Insurer Refuses to Submit to No Fault Insurance Fraud
...
Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
CASE OVERVIEW
In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.
FACTS
Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.
Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:
1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.
Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...