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.
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 ...
