Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Examiner” was included on the form that was approved by the New York State Insurance Department. Inasmuch as the differences between the form of medical questionnaire that was submitted to and approved by the New York State Insurance Department and the form that defendant signed are non-substantive, this Court finds that plaintiffs technical failure to submit for approval to the New York State Insurance Department the medical questionnaire form, entitled “Declarations to Paramedical Examiner” neither operates to void the insurance application form and policy nor relieves defendant of her duty to provide truthful information on her disability income insurance application. See, e.g., McDaniels v. American Bankers Insur. Co., 643 N.Y.S.2d 846, 846-47, 227 A.D.2d 951, 952 (4th Dep’t 1996) (<HOLDING>); National Union Fire Insur. Co. v. Ambassador 
 Holding statements: (A) holding insurers technical noncompliance with insurance laws requirement to place question on policy application in tenpoint type did not preclude it from disclaiming coverage based upon insureds alleged misrepresentations nor relieve insured of duty to provide truthful data on her application (B) holding that insureds criminal convictions were sufficient to preclude relitigation of the issue of the insureds subjective intent for purposes of evaluating the insurers duty to defend (C) recognizing an insurers right to rescind an insurance contract where the insured has made fraudulent or material misrepresentation in insurance application (D) holding insureds general assertion that it expected a liability policy to cover such negligent acts as insured was alleged to have committed would not support application of reasonable expectations doctrine (E) holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed
Output (English): holding insureds general assertion that it expected a liability policy to cover such negligent acts as insured was alleged to have committed would not support application of reasonable expectations doctrine