Lie About Criminal Background & Insurer Will Try to Rescind
Post number 5277

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gk2N3i_z, See the video at https://lnkd.in/gdRjkdNh and at https://lnkd.in/gTszVnru and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.

Pro Se Defendant Admits Misrepresentation but Claimed no Intent to Defraud

In Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Sheba S. Gopaul, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-02454-LKG, United States District Court, D. Maryland (January 15, 2026) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) filed a declaratory judgment action against Sheba S. Gopaul, who represented herself (pro se).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

MetLife alleged that Ms. Gopaul made fraudulent material misrepresentations, misstatements, and/or omissions about her criminal history in her 2015 application for a disability income insurance policy. The company claimed that it would not have issued the policy had it known the true facts.

Ms. Gopaul completed the application on June 18, 2015, and agreed in writing that all statements were true and complete, and that MetLife could rely on them in deciding whether to issue the policy.

Ms. Gopaul submitted an initial claim for disability benefits form to MetLife. In the disability claim, Ms. Gopaul claimed total disability from her occupation as the CEO/CFO of a healthcare company, due to moderate to severe pain in her pelvis, knee and hip when standing, climbing, walking, bending and lifting, due to a series of falls in June and August of 2019, along with postpartum depression and anxiety after delivering a baby in December of 2019.

The crimes misrepresented were the following crimes for which she was convicted: Theft, Prostitution, U/U use of livestock, Grand Larceny-credit cards (Felony), Obtaining Money Under False Pretense and auto theft.

LEGAL ISSUES

The court reviewed the matter as a declaratory judgment action, applying principles governing insurance contracts, including the legal standards for rescission due to material misrepresentation. Under Maryland law, an insurer may rescind a policy if it can prove that a material misrepresentation was made in the application and that the misrepresentation affected the company’s decision to issue the policy.

ANALYSIS

After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that MetLife had established a basis for some, but not all, of its claims for summary judgment. Specifically, the court found sufficient evidence supporting MetLife’s contention that Ms. Gopaul made material misrepresentations regarding her criminal history, which were significant to MetLife’s decision-making process but did not prove that the misrepresentations were fraudulent.

MetLife contended that it would not have issued the Policy to Ms. Gopaul had it known about these three prior felony convictions and the multiple misdemeanor convictions sounding in fraud, because she would have been deemed an unacceptable insured due to both a medical and financial risk.

MetLife’s Rescission Of The Policy

There must be sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.

The Omitted Convictions Are Material

The undisputed material facts show that Ms. Gopaul’s misrepresentations and/or omissions about her criminal history were material, because MetLife would not have issued the Policy had it known about these prior convictions.
Material And Fraudulent Misrepresentations

The burden is on the insurer to establish fraud or misrepresentation by the insured in the application for insurance. The undisputed material facts in this case show that Ms. Gopaul’s misrepresentations and/or omissions about her criminal history were material. But, the Court concluded there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Ms. Gopaul’s misrepresentations and/or omissions about her criminal history were fraudulent.

Made Fraudulent Misrepresentations Regarding Her Criminal History

The Court was not satisfied that the undisputed material facts establish that Ms. Gopaul’s material misrepresentations and/or omissions to MetLife about her criminal history were fraudulent. Ms. Gopaul’s misrepresentations and/or omissions about her criminal history were not established as made for the purpose of defrauding MetLife.

ZALMA OPINION

Making a material misrepresentation in an application is usually sufficient to prove an insurer’s right to rescind. The USDC, perhaps giving the benefits of all doubt to a pro se defendant, found that although she admitted she lied on the application she did not do so to defraud the insurer. A trial before a reasonable jury who do not feel sorry for a pro se defendant should confirm the rescission.

(c) 2026 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 InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.