You are here: / / EVEN AN INNOCENT MATERIAL MISTAKE ON AN INSURANCE APPLICATION RENDERS THE...

EVEN AN INNOCENT MATERIAL MISTAKE ON AN INSURANCE APPLICATION RENDERS THE POLICY UNENFORCEABLE.

The Second Department determined the trial court property granted the insurer’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law. The insured acknowledged that the property was configured as a three-family home, but that he indicated it was a two-family home on the application for insurance. Even an innocent material misrepresentation renders the policy unenforceable:

In order to establish the right to rescind an insurance policy, an insurer must show that its insured made a material misrepresentation of fact when he or she secured the policy … . A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the facts misrepresented … .

Here, the plaintiff’s own testimony established that his house was structurally configured as a three-family dwelling, and thus, the statement on his insurance application indicating that it was a two-family dwelling was a misrepresentation … . Although the plaintiff testified that he believed his house was a legal two-family dwelling, an insurer may rescind a policy if the insured made a material misrepresentation of fact even if the misrepresentation was innocently or unintentionally made … . Further, the defendant established that the plaintiff’s misrepresentation was material through the uncontroverted testimony of its witnesses and documentary evidence, including its underwriting guidelines, which established that the defendant did not insure three-family dwellings, and would not have issued the subject policy if the plaintiff and his wife had disclosed that the house contained three dwelling units … . Estate of Gen Yee Chu v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 01536, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (EVEN AN INNOCENT MATERIAL MISTAKE ON AN INSURANCE APPLICATION RENDERS THE POLICY UNENFORCEABLE)/MISREPRESENTATION (INSURANCE LAW, EVEN AN INNOCENT MATERIAL MISTAKE ON AN INSURANCE APPLICATION RENDERS THE POLICY UNENFORCEABLE)

You might also like
THERE IS NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR A TORT ACTION AGAINST A CHARTER SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS REPLY TO A COUNTERCLAIM TO ADD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS NOT PALPABLY IMPROPER AND DEFENDANT SHOWED THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE BY NOT OPPOSING THE MOTION TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT).
SAFETY CONSULTANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER WORKSITE TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) OR 200–CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
A PHOTOGRAPH DOWNLOADED FROM FACEBOOK ALLEGEDLY SHOWING DEFENDANT WEARING CLOTHES SIMILAR TO THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMIITTED IN EVIDENCE; THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER, WHO DEFAULTED, ENTITLED TO DISPOSITIONAL HEARING IN PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE HER PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON MENTAL ILLNESS AND PERMANENT NEGLECT.
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 DID NOT APPLY AND DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
Governmental Immunity Re: Plaintiff Does Not Insulate Governmental Defendants from Contribution Claim by Another Defendant to Whom the Governmental Defendants Owed a Duty of Care
FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LENDER DID NOT NEGOTIATE A MORTGAGE MODIFICATION IN GOOD FAITH AND WAS PROPERLY... PURPORTED WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL NOT VALID, NOTHING ON THE RECORD.