Let me give an example. Suppose Smith and Jones enter a contract on June 1 by which Smith agrees to buy Jones's car on July 1, but only if Jones owned the car on June 1. Therefore, Smith refuses to pay. One could hardly argue that Smith's statement deprives him of the right to assert the conditions of the contract at the risk of being sued for a misrepresentation. If Jones has a cause of action, it is at best for breach of contract.
Insurance policies are contracts subject to interpretation under general contract principles.
Consequently, the Court errs in presupposing that it was. With these remarks, I join all but part V of the Court's opinion, and I join the Court's judgment. See, e.g., Balandran v. Co. v. CBI Indus.