Material Misrepresentation on Application Defense to Claim
Post 5058
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/d9ruJnGa and at https://lnkd.in/dPbGSpK7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Lies on Application for Insurance Eliminates Coverage for a Claim
Magna Tyres USA, LLC appealed the summary judgment in favor of Coface North America Insurance Company and against its complaint of breach of contract and request for a declaratory judgment. In Magna Tyres USA, LLC v. Coface North America Insurance Company, No. 24-13036, the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (April 10, 2025) determined the effect of a material misrepresentation on an application for insurance.
FACTS
Magna Tyres USA, an affiliate of Magna Tyres Group, obtained coverage under Coface’s international credit insurance policy to cover the credit it extended to its customers.
Coface’s agent completed and submitted the insurance application to underwriting before returning it to Magna Tyres USA for signature. He wrote that “if there is a section that isn’t completed, then that means it doesn’t have to be completed” and to sign if Magna Tyres USA did not want to make any changes.
Michael de Ruijter, chief executive officer of both Magna Tyres Group and Magna Tyres USA, signed the application. Magna Tyres USA answered that it lacked any information detrimental to the creditworthiness of any customer and left blank how much of its outstanding customer debts were over 60 days past due.
The policy contained a provision excluding coverage based on misrepresentation.
Magna Tyres USA obtained coverage for multiple companies, including three for which it eventually submitted claims: Tires Direct, Inc., Narsi, Inc., and Tire Super Center of Orlando, LLC. Before the application was signed Magna Tyres USA knew Sanjeet Singh Veen owned three companies whose debts exceeded $11.6 million. Magna Tyres USA’s former employee, who oversaw accounting, testified that Singh was regularly 90 days past due on his accounts. And in a January 2020 meeting, Magna representatives stated that Singh’s debts created “too much risk” and decided to stop shipping products until he paid.
Alexandre Lacreu, chief underwriting officer for Coface, stated that Coface would not have insured the debts of any Singh company had Magna Tyres USA disclosed that there was one person responsible for the customers’ orders, that the customers were heavily indebted and had debt that was 60 days past due, and that Magna Tyres USA had stopped delivering products based on that debt.
Magna Tyres USA submitted insurance claims to Coface seeking coverage for the unpaid debts of the covered companies, some of which Coface held in abeyance and some of which it denied. Magna Tyres USA sued.
Coface answered that Magna Tyres USA made material misrepresentations on its application. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Coface.
DECISION
The district court did not err in ruling Magna Tyres USA made a material misrepresentation. Magna Tyres USA misrepresented in its application that it lacked any information detrimental to the creditworthiness of any customer and, in fact, Magna Tyres knew information detrimental to the creditworthiness of the covered companies when it signed the application in February 2020.
A party to a contract has a duty to know the contents of the contract before he signs it, and to know the content of an application for insurance, regardless of whether an insurance agent completes the application.
Michael de Ruijter signed the application and knew all information regarding Singh’s payment history with both Magna Tyres USA and Magna Tyres Group.
The misrepresentation was material. Florida courts have held that the determination of materiality to the acceptance of risk is a question of law based on an objective view of materiality, and the determination of how the insurer would have acted is one of fact requiring testimony from the insurer’s representatives. The failures to disclose that Singh was the common owner of the companies and had amassed debts sufficient for Magna to stop shipping based on the risk of nonpayment were objectively material.
Lacreu was designated to testify as a corporate representative regarding the procedures for evaluating the buyers’ credit risk.
An insurance company has the right to rely on an applicant’s representation and is under no duty to inquire further unless it has actual or constructive knowledge that such representations are incorrect or untrue. Coface lacked knowledge about Singh’s companies having such high debt that Magna Tyres stopped shipping to them before obtaining coverage. Coface was entitled to rely on the truthfulness of the application that Magna Tyres USA had no information relevant to the customers’ creditworthiness.
ZALMA OPINION
This is not a rescission case, although Coface could have rescinded the policy, it did not. It denied the claim based on misrepresentation and left the policy in effect. Magna Tyres lied on its application, knew it had a customer with a major bad debt and only after the policy was issued attempted to collect the debt from the insurer instead of the customer it let get deep in debt. Insurers are entitled to rely on the good faith of an insured and when lied to the insurer can refuse to pay. Technically, the major lies from Magna, could be evidence of fraud.
(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 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, ...
