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.
New Trial Because Jury Used Policy That Provides No Coverage to Assess Damages
Post 5255
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/drG3xH2R, see the video at https://lnkd.in/d6p8e-9p and at https://lnkd.in/dgPsQ3Sn, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Brown & Brown of Florida, Inc. v. Houligan’s Pub & Club, Inc., and Ormond Wine Company, LLC, Nos. 5D2024-2352, 5D2024-2458, Florida Court of Appeals (January 2, 2026) the Court of Appeals was faced with a case of first impression that involved damages from a hurricane that hit the East Coast of Florida almost a decade ago and the extent to which an insurance broker is responsible for paying for such damages.
The jury entered a verdict in favor of the insurance broker on the insured’s claim that it was negligent in failing to procure insurance, but it found in favor of the insured on claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation.
The insurance broker does not contest it breached its duties on these two claims, only ...
Agent Loses License for Misappropriating Insurers Funds
Post 5254
See the video at https://lnkd.in/gPpkx-np and at https://lnkd.in/g7AidnXS, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Agent Fraud Fails
In Rochell Provost v. State Of Louisiana Division Of Administrative Law And Louisiana Department Of Insurance, No. 2025 CA 0492, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit (December 19, 2025) the Louisiana Department of Insurance (LDI) successfully appealed a district court judgment that reinstated Rochell Provost’s insurance producer license and reversed a $5,000 fine previously assessed against her.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The underlying dispute began when Union National Life Insurance Company/Kemper Life terminated Ms. Provost for cause, alleging she had committed fraudulent activity and misappropriated $31,471.39 in company funds. An investigative report supporting these findings was sent to LDI.
Following receipt of the report, LDI notified Ms. Provost of proposed regulatory action concerning ...
Post 5254
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gqva4sJq, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gR7AAuJR and at https://lnkd.in/gYfDxq_D, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Help a Person Commit Insurance Fraud & Go to Jail
Guilty of Tampering With Evidence by Hiding it in Garage
In State Of Montana v. Lila Lynn Lord, 2025 MT 302, No. DA 24-0343, Supreme Court of Montana (December 30, 2025) Lila Lord (Lord) appealed her conviction for Tampering with Evidence following a jury trial in the Seventh Judicial District Court, Richland County. The case centered on a staged burglary in Sidney, Montana, orchestrated by Marie Chris Entzel with the intent to collect insurance proceeds to cover her son’s legal fees. Entzel recruited several individuals — including David Skaw, Lawrence Pohl, Laurie McGregor, and the defendant, Lila Lord — to assist in removing valuable items from her home, causing property damage and theft of items such as an enclosed trailer, boat and trailer, refrigerator, pistol, and television....
Court Must Follow Judicial Precedent
Post 5252
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sudden-opposite-gradual-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-h7qmc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Policy Interpretation Requires Application of the Judicial Construction Doctrine
In Montrose Chemical Corporation Of California v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Canadian Universal Insurance Company, Inc., et al., B335073, Court of Appeal, 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 (9/30/2025) the Court of Appeal refused to allow extrinsic evidence to interpret the word “sudden” in qualified pollution exclusions (QPEs) as including gradual but unexpected pollution. The court held that, under controlling California appellate precedent, the term “sudden” in these standard-form exclusions unambiguously includes a temporal element (abruptness) and cannot reasonably be construed to mean ...
Lack of Jurisdiction Defeats Suit for Defamation
Post 5250
Posted on December 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
He Who Represents Himself in a Lawsuit has a Fool for a Client
In Pankaj Merchia v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 24-2700 (RC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (December 22, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Parties & Claims:
The plaintiff, Pankaj Merchia, is a physician, scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur, proceeding pro se. Merchia sued United Healthcare Services, Inc., a Minnesota-based medical insurance company, for defamation and related claims. The core allegation is that United Healthcare falsely accused Merchia of healthcare fraud, which led to his indictment and arrest in Massachusetts, causing reputational and business harm in the District of Columbia and nationwide.
Underlying Events:
The alleged defamation occurred when United ...
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dG829BF6; see the video at https://lnkd.in/dyCggZMZ and at https://lnkd.in/d6a9QdDd.
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 24
Subscribe to the e-mail Version of ZIFL, it’s Free! https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D
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/
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah
Read the following Articles from the December 15, 2025 issue:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at ...
