Rescission-Materiality

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has held that, in an action to rescind a professional liability policy, a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether an insured misrepresented or concealed information in connection with obtaining insurance where the insured did not have express notice of the clients’ dissatisfaction with his services and it was not otherwise obvious that a claim might be filed against him when he applied for the policy. Am. Alternative Ins. Corp. v. Warner, 2020 WL 6204924 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2020). In denying the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, the court noted that evidence of an increase in premiums is sufficient to establish materiality under California law.

Continue Reading Whether Insured Misrepresented or Concealed Information in Application is a Fact Issue for Trial

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, applying Illinois law, has held that an insurer was entitled to rescission of a policy where the insured made material misrepresentations in its application.  Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Robert S. Forbes PC, 2017 WL 86136 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2017).  The court also held that the insurer did not waive its right to rescind because, even though the insurer took a year to investigate the claim, the insurer consistently reserved its right to rescind the policy.

Continue Reading Insurer Entitled to Rescind Lawyers Professional Liability Policy Where Insured Made Material Misrepresentations in Application