Additional Insureds Can Intervene to Try to Defeat Suit to Rescind Policy
Post 5170
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gYfHuADV and at https://lnkd.in/gnw6FFdX, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Posted on August 18, 2025 by Barry Zalma
The case involves Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company (“Accelerant”) seeking a declaratory judgment against Big Apple Designers, Inc. (“Big Apple”), declaring that the insurance policies issued by Accelerant to Big Apple are invalid and do not create a duty to defend or indemnify Big Apple in several personal injury actions currently pending in New York State Supreme Court. M&R Construction Group, Inc. (“M&R”) and Continental Indemnity Company (“Continental”) filed a motion to intervene, asserting that M&R is entitled to coverage from Accelerant as an additional insured.
In Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. Big Apple Designers, Inc., No. 24-CV-7793 (ARR) (RML), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 6, 2025) the USDC ruled to allow intervention to dispute the claim of rescission.
BACKGROUND
Indemnification and Duty to Defend:
The court discussed the distinction between an insurer’s duty to defend and its duty to indemnify. The duty to defend is triggered by the initiation of a claim under which the insured may eventually be found liable, while the duty to indemnify is contingent upon a liability finding.
INTERVENTION:
The court granted the motion to intervene by M&R and Continental, allowing them to assert counterclaims against Accelerant. The court found that intervention will promote efficiency and prevent inconsistent judgments to allow proper defense of Accelerant’s claim of rescission.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND RESCISSION:
Accelerant sought a declaratory judgment that the insurance policies were void due to Big Apple’s material misrepresentations in its insurance application. The court discussed the principles of rescission and the impact of misrepresentations on the validity of insurance policies but did not rule on the issue.
COURT’S DECISION:
The court granted the motion to intervene by M&R and Continental, allowing them to assert their proposed counterclaims against Accelerant, with the exception of any claims seeking indemnification. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over M&R’s claim for indemnification under the Declaratory Judgment Act, as liability has not yet been determined in the underlying Yunga Action.
ANALYSIS
Accelerant’s first and second claims both sougt declaratory judgments that disclaim Big Apple’s entitlement to coverage under the Accelerant Policies. The first claim asserts a breach of contract-that Big Apple’s misrepresentations in its insurance application breached the Accelerant Policies’ contractual warranties.
Intervention as a Matter of Right
To establish intervention as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), an intervenor must show that (1) the motion is timely; (2) the applicant asserts an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant is so situated that without intervention, disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by the other parties.
The decision to permit intervention is not unlimited, however. Intervenors seek a declaration that Accelerant owes a duty to defend and indemnify M&R in the Yunga Action. As the Second Circuit has explained, even in circumstances when a declaratory judgment would serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue, district courts retain broad discretion to decline jurisdiction under the DJA.
An insurer’s duty to defend an additional insured is triggered by the initiation of a claim under which its insured may eventually be found liable. It is not contingent upon a liability finding.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND RESCISSION:
The court concluded that the named insured did not represent the interests of the additional insured in disputing the rescission and so granted leave to intervene.
ZALMA OPINION
Rescission, if granted, puts the parties back to the place where they were before the inception of the policy. The court noted that the named insured was not interested, nor were they trying to defeat the rescission, but that the additional insured who intervened would put in the effort so the court granted intervention and left the issue of rescission for a more detailed consideration. If Accelerant can prove the policy was obtained by fraud or material misrepresentation the policy will be void from its inception and neither the named nor the additional insureds will be allowed defense or indemnification.
You can find a permanent public version of the document here: https://public.fastcase.com/jaEE2PXzRXmZ99jOLMt1Il4uCbo8ZFJ5okOMj4HOg56hikcK0S3TPNmeOPNAlT7%2fWbJynHYMpBbNuraQPgltZA%3d%3d
(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, ...
