Source: http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insurancelaw/blogs/commercialliability/archive/2012/05/04/california-court-denies-rescission-of-insurance-policy.aspx
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 07:20:13
Document Index: 303446386

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 30', '§ 38', '§ 37']

California Court Denies Rescission of Insurance Policy Brian Margolies,Traub Lieberman,CGL,insurance coverage,commercial general liability insurance,California,Thompson v. Navigators Ins. Co.,general liability policy,contractor,rescission,misrepresentations
05/04/2012 05:09:00 PM EST
California Court Denies Rescission of Insurance Policy Posted by
Like most rescission cases, the insurer, Navigators, did not learn of the grounds for rescission until its insured, TBI, was named as a defendant in an underlying lawsuit. TBI had been hired to repair a roof on a commercial structure that had been damaged in a fire. During the course of the repair work, an employee of another contractor was injured when he fell through a hole in the roof. After receiving notice of suit, Navigators rescinded the policy based on material misrepresentations made in the policy application. In the ensuing coverage litigation, Navigators claimed that if it was not entitled to rescission, that in the alternative, coverage was unavailable on other grounds, including the ground that coverage was limited to the insured's work on residential structures. The court considered each of these issues on motion for summary judgment.
Navigator's first basis for rescission was based on TBI's response to an application question asking whether the insured engaged in "structural demolition." TBI answered "no" to this question. The invoice for the work in the underlying matter, however, stated that TBI was performing "demo roof." TBI argued that all contractors necessarily perform some degree of "demo" work when they remove existing parts of structures to complete their jobs. Such work, TBI contended, is different than the industry understanding of "demolition," which is demolition and removal of an entire structure. The court concluded, based on this argument, and because Navigators failed to provide a satisfactory definition in response, that "demolition" as used in the application was ambiguous, and as such, summary judgment was unavailable on this particular alleged misrepresentation.
The court concluded similarly with respect to the application question asking whether there had been or would be "[r]oofing performed by the applicant." TBI answered "no" to this question. TBI conceded that its contract in the underlying matter involved work on a roof. It nevertheless contended that within the construction industry, roofing generally refers to installation of the waterproofing system, such as shingles. TBI was not performing this type of work, but instead was performing framing on which waterproofing later would be installed. Navigators, on the other hand, pointed to the fact that the policy application stated that "[a]ll roofing work must be subcontracted," thus indicating that any work performed in connection with a roof, whether relating to waterproofing or framing, would not be covered if performed by the insured. In light of the competing proposed definitions, the court found the term "roofing" to be ambiguous, and thus denied summary judgment on this misrepresentation as well.
The court also rejected Navigators argument that rescission was proper based on TBI's representation in the application that it performed 100% residential work, and that the project giving rise to the underlying action was a commercial building. Navigators argued that this misrepresentation was material, since it would have charged a higher premium had it known that TBI was performing work on commercial projects. The court, however, found a question of fact as to whether Navigators actually would have charged a higher premium.
Finally, Navigators argued that rescission was proper based on TBI's response to a question as to whether it would perform any repair or remediation of fire damage. TBI answered no to this question. While the underlying project was, in fact, repair of a roof that had been damaged by a fire, TBI argued that this misrepresentation was not material, and pointed to inconsistencies in Navigators' underwriting guidelines as to whether the company would insure such work. These inconsistencies, the court held, precluded a grant of summary judgment in Navigator's favor.
Having held that summary judgment was inappropriate on rescission, the court turned to Navigator's argument that the underlying matter did not fall within the policy's scope of coverage, which was limited to work on residential structures. The policy's declarations identified TBI's business as "CONSTRUCTION OF RESDIENTIAL PROPERTY NOT EXCEEDING THREE [sic]." Navigators contended that the declarations defined the policy's scope, and that as such, TBI's work on a commercial structure was not within the policy's coverage. The court, however, found the policy ambiguous on this point, noting that, "it is not completely clear that the unfinished phrase 'Carpentry - Construction of Residential Property Not Exceeding Three' excludes all coverage for commercial property in all situations." For instance, explained the court, "TBI may have believed that carpentry was permissible on any type of building but 'construction' work was limited to residential property not exceeding three stories." More significantly for the court, the policy did not clarify the scope of coverage within the insuring agreement or by endorsement. In other words, the identification of TBI's business in the policy declarations, in the absence of any further reference to this in the remainder of the policy, did not definitively define the policy's scope of coverage, at least for the purpose of summary judgment.
Notwithstanding the court's ruling against Navigators on rescission and on the scope of the policy's coverage, the court rejected TBI's argument that by having rescinded the policy, Navigators was precluded from arguing coverage defenses. Thus, Navigators was not barred from arguing scope of coverage and other applicable exclusions at trial.
Lexis.com subscribers can access the Lexis enhanced version of the decisions with summary, headnotes, and Shepard's, Thompson v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60122 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012).
Business Liability Insurance RI Court Holds No Coverage for Criminal Proceedings Involving Nightclub Tragedy Who’s On First – The Selective Tender RuleEighth Circuit Holds Claim Against General Contractor Not an Occurrence California Appellate Court Upholds Trial Court’s Dismissal of a Coverage Claim for an Alleged Advertising InjuryThird Circuit Finds Additional Insured Coverage Based on Peculiar Risk DoctrineNinth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Breach of Contract, Washington Consumer Protection Act and Insurance Fair Conduct Act Claims Against Boiler & Machinery Insurer.Nevada Court Denies Insured’s Demand for Refund of Advance PremiumThird Circuit Court of Appeals Addresses Reformation of Insurance Policy Holy Mau: Florida Federal Court Rejects Continuous Trigger for Chinese Drywall ClaimsEarthquake/Tsunami Resource Center – Insurance Experts Speak Out on Business Interruption Claims and Other Key IssuesReed Smith LLP on Developments and New Directions in Coverage for Claims Related to the Telephone Consumer Protection ActMcCarter & English on Conflicting Interpretations of “Occurrence”: Lessons From the First Climate Change Liability Insurance Case, AES Corporation v. Steadfast Insurance CompanyMcCarter & English on CGL Coverage for Advertising Injury: New Jersey Appellate Panel Weighs in on Blast Fax CoverageMcCarter & English, LLP Discuss Factual Issues That Determine General Liability Insurance Coverage Under New Jersey Law For Violations Of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act: Penn National Insurance Co. v. Group C Communications, Inc.McCarter & English on Panel Finds for Additional Insured Under Ongoing-Operations Clause: Tri-Star Theme Builders, Inc., et al. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.Insurance 101-Insights for Young Lawyers: When, What and Why?: Notifying Insurer of a "Claim" or a Potential Claim under an EPLI PolicyReed Smith LLP on Insuring Against the Emerging Risk of Kidnap, Ransom, Extortion and Unlawful DetentionNew Jersey Insurance Litigation: Chapter 4 Commercial Lines: Commercial General Liability PoliciesMcCarter and English LLP on the Virginia Court’s Narrow Reading of “Proximate Cause” Allegations in a Complaint Is Contradicted by a California Court’s Reading of the Same ComplaintInsurance Coverage for SEC Investigations Cyber Insurance Bricks and Mortar Coverage for a Digital World: Recent Trends and the Insurance Coverage Implications of Internet, Technology, and Social MediaCBI for the CloudSiemens and Beck on Obtaining Optimal Cyber InsuranceVideocast: Scott Godes and Richard Bortnick Face Off On: Cyber Insurance for Data Breaches and Advertising Injury, and Defining PublicationFarella Braun: Coverage for Theft of Customer Credit Card InformationInsurance Coverage Implications of Social Media: Download This Complimentary White PaperHow to Negotiate Cyber InsuranceFarella Braun + Martel LLP: Protect Your Business With Cyber Liability CoverageSmaller Companies Should Consider Cyber-Liability InsuranceHurricane Sandy Insurance Center LexisNexis® Insurance Law Community Podcast: Selena J. Linde on Hurricane Insurance Coverage Issues Effect of Post-Loss Economic Factors in Measuring Business Interruption Losses: An Insured's and Insurer's PerspectivesCatastrophic Tornado and Flood Claims: Steps to Avoid Bad Faith ExposureHurricanes, Floods, Storms - Disasters Near and Far: Property Insurance Policyholders Look For The Cover In Insurance CoverageAdvisory—Preserving and Maximizing Insurance Claims in the Aftermath of Hurricane IreneThe Rising Costs of Disaster: How to Obtain Protection for Flood Related IncidentsLexisNexis® Insurance Law Community Podcast featuring Selena Linde on Maximizing Insurance Assets for Property Damage and Business Interruption Claims Arising Out of the Japan Earthquakes and Tsunami.Anti-Concurrent Policy Language in Property Insurance Policies: Interpretation and Enforcement For Hurricane Damage-Wind and WaterFlood Insurer Is Not A Fiduciary For Federal Flood Insurance (NFIP) After Hurricane Damage To Insured's HomeClass Action Certified for Lender Requiring More Flood InsuranceA Practical Guide to Evaluating Contingent Business Interruption Losses After Natural DisastersInsurance Implications in the Wake of Hurricane Sandy and the Destruction on the East CoastMatthew Bender Insurance Publications Available at the LexisNexis StorePillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Advisory: Preserving and Maximizing Insurance Claims in the Aftermath of Superstorm SandyLexisNexis® Insurance Law Community Podcast: Selena Linde on Time Element Coverages for Businesses in the Aftermath of Superstorm SandyInterpretation and Enforcement of Anti-Concurrent Policy Language in Hurricane Katrina Cases and BeyondPerkins Coie on Insurance Coverage for Businesses Affected by Hurricane SandyNew eBook! Hurricane Law: Insurance and Recovery Issues Applicable to Major Storm DamageSuperstorm Sandy: Emerging Insurance Coverage IssuesSuperstorm Sandy: Financial Loss May Be Covered Even Without Property DamageInsurance Coverage Directors and Officers Insurer Sued By FDIC Over Bank FailureFifth Circuit Holds Settlement With Primary Insurer Did Not Result In ExhaustionNevada Adopts Notice-Prejudice DoctrineNew York’s Highest Court Perplexcess InsurersEndurance Coverage: “Top Ten Insurance Cases Of The Year” Reaches The Decade MarkThe Burden of AllocationPerkins Coie LLP on Avoiding Gaps in Insurance Coverage for Private-Equity-Placed Directors at Portfolio CompaniesNew Jersey Insurance Litigation, 5.21-5.24 Environmental Coverage Insurance CoverageMcCarter & English on New Jersey Supreme Court Denies Coverage to Cemetery and Crematory for Claims Arising from Illegal Harvesting of Human Remains: Memorial Properties, LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Co.Perkins Coie On All-Sums-With-Stacking Allocation Boosts Insurance Recovery Under “One Giant ‘Uber Policy’”McCarter & English LLP on Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am. v. Mericle and Colony Ins. Co. v. Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corp., Third Circuit Affirms Lack of Coverage for Pair of Judicial Kickback CasesCOVERAGE MEDIATIONS: Are they really that different?Irrelevant Innocence: The Interplay Between Innocent Insured Provisions and Prior Knowledge Provisions in Claims-Made PoliciesMcCarter & English LLP on Insurance Coverage for Greenwashing Claims: It Depends on the PackagingGoldgerg Segalla’s Professional Liability Monthly – October, 2010Coverage College Flunkie: MeManaging Risks Posed to Mutual Fund Industry Participants by Increasing Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement ActivityLexisNexis® Insurance Law Community Podcast featuring David A. Gauntlett on Intellectual Property InsuranceCaseWatch: Insurance – Decisions from The Insurance and Reinsurance Report – January 3, 2011Blogs From the Advisory Board: Insurer Potentially Liable To Investor in Ponzi Scheme Where Insurer Ignored Known Misrepresentations by Its Insured, Investment CompanyInsurance Law Reaction to the Recent Climate Change Insurance Coverage Decision by the Virginia Supreme CourtPillsbury Winthrop: Parties' Choice of Seat of Arbitration Key Factor in Choice of Law DecisionHow Insurance Coverage Lawyers Can Assist Other Lawyers in Helping Their ClientsEarth Day and the LexisNexis Insurance Law CommunityBig-time Delay of Game in the NFL?An Insurance Guide for the Sports and Entertainment IndustriesPennsylvania Federal Court Gives Policyholders An Enhanced TSA Pat-Down New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition - § 16.04: The Tripartite Relationship Among the Insured, the Insurer and Insurer-Directed Defense CounselFollow The Settlements And Ex Gratia PaymentsSNR Denton, US, LLP on Downhole Navigator, LLC v. Nautilus Insurance Co.: Fifth Circuit Concludes That Texas No Longer Allows a Policyholder to Demand Independent Counsel Merely Because the Insurer Offers a Defense under Reservation of RightsSNR Denton US LLP on Illinois School District Agency v. The St. Charles Community Unit School District 303: Illinois Appellate Court Rejects “Selective Tender” Rule for Chronologically Consecutive Insurance PoliciesInsured vs. Insured on Same Policy Is 1st-Party ClaimantSNR Denton on Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance Co.: Does a Right to Independent Counsel Entitle the Policyholder to Two Lawyers?SNR Denton on Weitz Co. v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.: Is an Insurer a Co-Client of Defense Counsel It Retains to Defend an Insured?Revisiting the Three Rs: Risks, Rewards, and RescissionReed Smith on An Analysis of West American Ins. Co. v. Yorkville Nat'l Bank:Twenty-Seven Month Delay Not Unreasonable Notice According to Illinois Supreme CourtNew Release: Responsibilities of Insurance Agents and BrokersTen Most Significant Insurance Decisions of 2010: Case Summaries and Core Search Terms from Lexis.com Blogs from the ILC Advisory Board: Richards v. Sequoia Insurance Co.: Liability Insurer Not Obliged to Compensate Insureds for Defending Themselves While Insurer Is Considering Whether To Provide DefenseDuane Morris: Key Ruling for Insurance Companies in Equitable Subrogation Action in U.S. District Court in FloridaInsurance Policy Exclusions Posner On The Pollution Exclusion: Could It Have Been The Most Important Decision Ever?No Surprise – Raw Sewage Is A PollutantHoly Terms And Conditions: Wisconsin Supreme Court Says Kapow To Insured’s Argument That Bat Guano Is Not A PollutantIllinois Court Addresses Liquor Liability ExclusionApplication of Exclusion to Drywall Claim Does Not Render Coverage IllusoryFlorida Court Holds Insurer Has Duty to Indemnify Legionella Bacteria ClaimCalifornia Appellate Court Addresses Professional Liability Coverage IssuesThe Grim Reaper Pays Nothing: Body Lost – Suit FollowsRelease of Asbestos During Ceiling Renovation Falls Within Pollution Exclusion of Property InsurancePeach Clobber: Georgia Appeals Court Knocks Out the “Assault & Battery” ExclusionMcCarter & English on the Continuing Debate Over the Breadth and Limits of the Exclusion for "Water Under the Ground Surface" in First-Party PoliciesMcCarter & English LLP on Barrett v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.: Georgia Court Interprets Pollution Exclusion in Favor of CoverageExclusions Got You Down? Consider Coverage for Ensuing Losses11th Circuit Holds Pollution Exclusion Applies to Carbon Monoxide PoisoningSNR Denton US LLP on Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Stranczek: Business Pursuits Exclusion Does Not Depend on Subjective Profit SNR Denton LLP on Hoover v. Maxum Indemnity Co.: Georgia Supreme Court Seems To Hold That Liability Insurance Disclaimer on One Ground Forfeits Other GroundsWasteful Litigation – Failure To Read Policy No ExcuseMissouri Federal Court Holds Pollution Exclusion Inapplicable to Exposure to FumesCooking Grease Can Be A PollutantMcCarter & English LLP on District Court Applies Maryland Law; Finds Coverage for Asphalt Spill Despite Absolute Pollution ExclusionInsurance Regulation Advisory—UK Bribery Act 2010 – Consider Your Directors and Officers Insurance?California Supreme Court Steps Away from Foster-Gardner DoctrineConstruction Defects as an ‘Occurrence’: State Legislatures Weigh InTreatment of Insurance Proceeds and the Stafford Act’s Public Assistance Grant ProgramOne More Thing to Keep Directors and Officers Awake at Night: Dodd-Frank’s Impact on D&O InsuranceInsurer Bad Faith/Duty to Defend Second Circuit Holds No Duty to Defend Intellectual Property ClaimThe Duty To Defend Is Coming To Town: 10th Circuit Uses “Extrinsic Evidence” To Sleigh InsurerArizona Appeals Court Takes Different Tack In Addressing Independent Counsel FeesPillsbury Winthrop: Ninth Circuit Reaffirms that Insurers May be Obligated to Initiate Settlement Discussions Under California LawDistrict Court Makes Illi-noise Whether Policy Language Can Alter A Long-Standing Duty To Defend RuleJungleland: New Jersey and the Duty to DefendDon’t Mess With Texas’s Duty to Defend: High Court Continues To Adhere To Its Unique Rule That The Duty To Indemnify Is Broader Than The Duty To DefendAmerican Bar Association Litigation Section Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee Mid-Winter MeetingNew Appleman Insurance Bad Faith Litigation, Second Edition - § 3.06: Duties of Insurer-Selected Defense Counsel in Partial Coverage or Excess Exposure Cases, and § 3.07: Insurer Liability for Improper DefenseShearer & Sons v. Gemini Ins. Co.SNR Denton LLP on Maxwell v. Hartford Union High School District: Wisconsin Supreme Court Rejects Broadening Coverage by Estoppel but Approves Forfeiture of Coverage Defenses for Breach of Duty to DefendMcCarter & English on Dealing with Conflicts of Interest Inherent in Retrospective Premium PoliciesMcCarter and English on New York Courts Continue to Broaden Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Remedies Against Insurance CompaniesSNR Denton on Oubre v. Citizens Insurance Co.: Louisiana Supreme Court Clarifies Penalty StatutesSNR Denton on Kartman v. State Farm: Claim Handling Class Actions and Bad Faith Without Coverage Take Another HitSNR Denton on Fred Shearer & Sons, Inc. v. Gemini Insurance Co.: Oregon Allows Use of Extrinsic Evidence To Determine Whether a Defendant is InsuredCovington & Burling LLP on 10th Circuit Rules that Insurers Have a Duty to Defend Patent Infringement Suits under “Advertising Injury” CGL CoverageTimothy Law and Jeremy Heinnickel of Reed Smith: Tenth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Patent Infringement Allegations under Advertising Liability CoverageReed Smith LLP on Avoiding Disproportionate Forfeiture of Insurance Coverage Through Doctrines of Waiver, Estoppel, Mend the Hold, Prejudice, and Good Faith and Fair DealingMcCarter & English on Duty To Defend Obligation Arises For Portee Claim In New Jersey Even In Absence Of Allegation Of Physical InjuryMedical Insurance Coverage Ballard Spahr Legal Alert: HHS Releases FAQs on Essential Health BenefitsMotor Vehicle Insurance It is Important to Honor Substance Over FormLinsurance Coverage: The Issue That Everyone Is Talking About – “Use of an Auto” Exclusion the Most Popular Issue of the YearBlogs From the Advisory Board: The Wacky World of Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist InsuranceThe Right to Stack UM Coverage Can Be WaivedLeaking Like Progres-sieve?: What’s Next For Insurers After The UIM Claim Heard ‘Round The WorldNo Coverage For Participant In Drag RaceAn Apple Can Never Be An Orange – Regular Use Exclusion EffectiveNew Appleman on Insurance New Appleman Premium Online Checklists - § 30.01 Checklist: Identifying Occurrences, Injuries, and Offenses Covered by Liability InsuranceNew Appleman Premium Online Checklists - § 38.01 Checklist: Identifying Risks Covered By Errors and Omissions (E&O) Insurance New Appleman Premium Online Checklists - § 37.03 Checklist: Evaluating Coverage Claims Under Directors' and Officers' (D&O) Insurance PoliciesChapter 15 General Liability Insurance in New Appleman New York Insurance Law, Second EditionReinsurance Dispute Resolution – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 77Utmost Good Faith – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 76Reinsurance Intermediaries – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 75Duties of the Cedent – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 73The Reinsurance Contract – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 72Introduction and General Principles of Reinsurance Law – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 71Truckers’ and Motor Carriers’ Commercial Vehicle Insurance – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 69Garage Owners’ Insurance – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 68Business-Owned Vehicles Insurance – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 67Bad Faith in the Context of First-Party Insurance – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 55Title Insurance – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 54No-Fault Insurance – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 66Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Insurance – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 65Medical Payments Coverage – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 64Automobile Liability Insurance – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 63Physical Damage Coverage For Motor Vehicles (Collision, Comprehensive And Named-Perils Coverages) – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 62News Federal Judge Dismisses Commercial General Liability Insurer's Coverage Action Regarding Faulty Work under Abstention DoctrineOhio Magistrate Judge Grants Order To Produce Relevant Insurance PoliciesEmployee Exclusion And Pollution Exclusion Bar Coverage, Panel Determines1st Circuit Reverses Ruling Against Insurers In 'Blast Fax' Coverage LawsuitPanel: No Coverage For Jewelry Theft Loss During Airline's Custody Of BagNew Mexico High Court To Review Whether Pollution Discharges Were Sudden and Accidental: Appeals Court Enforced Pollution ExclusionJudge: Insurer Has Duty To Defend, Indemnify Chinese Drywall Claims - Pollution and Sistership Exclusions InapplicableCalifornia Federal Judge Susan Illston: Groundwater Contamination Injurious Acts Occurred During Policy PeriodWashington Federal Judge Grants Dismissal After Parties Settle Environmental Contamination Coverage ClaimsEquipment Breakdown Insurer Owed Coverage For Gas Explosion Claims, Connecticut Federal Judge Says9th Circuit Dismisses Appeal Of Injunction In Thorpe Case As MootChristy Refractories' $12 Million Settlement With Insurers ApprovedPanel Finds No 'Entire Collapse' Occurred Causing Insured's LossJudge Dismisses Lawsuit Seeking Business Interruption Coverage For Katrina DamageInsurer, Agent Owed No Duty To Parties Not Listed As Insureds in CGL Policy, California Court of Appeal Panel RulesFederal Judge Finds No Basis To Remand Or Dismiss Coverage SuitsFlorida Appeals Court Denies Certiorari Over Addition Of Bad Faith Claims - No Irreparable Injury ShownCalifornia Appeals Court Differentiates Home Protection From Insurance CoverageDismissal Denied Over Alleged Failure To Defend Forest Fire Liability Cases (Motion to Dismiss Available to Subscribers)Insurance Coverage Exists For Water Damage Only During Policy Period, Federal Judge ReiteratesProperty Insurance Faulty Workmanship is Not an “Occurrence” But the Damage it Does Is an OccurrenceSweet Defective-Home Alabama: Supreme Court Addresses The “Occurrence” IssueSweet Carolina For Policyholders: Good Times Will Never Seem So Good For Construction Defect ClaimsContinuous Trigger: The ShamWow of Coverage Issues – Sucking Insurers Dry of Much More Than Would Seem PossibleAdvisory—Preserving and Maximizing Insurance Claims in the Aftermath of Hurricane IreneEnsuing Loss Provisions, Efficient Proximate Cause Rule, and Definition of Collapse Addressed by WA Supreme CourtThe Rising Costs of Disaster: How to Obtain Protection for Flood Related IncidentsTrespass Can Never be an AccidentMichigan Court Holds No Coverage Under Successive UST PoliciesInsurance Recovery and Counseling Alert: Georgia Supreme Court Holds That Negligent Construction Is an “Occurrence” Under CGL Insurance PoliciesInsurance Recovery and Counseling Alert: Georgia Supreme Court Holds That Negligent Construction Is an “Occurrence” Under CGL Insurance PoliciesSweet Carolina For Insurers: Good Times Will Never Seem So Good For Construction Defect ClaimsIf You Build It, He Will Come (And Sue You)For Insurers In Pennsylvania: Courts Continue to Sing The Praises of Kvaerner And GamboneInsurance Implications in the Wake of Hurricane IreneMcKenna Long & Aldridge LLP On A Roadmap For Determining Coverage For Construction Defect Claims In New YorkMcCarter & English LLP on New Jersey Appellate Division Opens Door to Coverage for Subcontractors' Defective WorkMcCarter & English LLP on Chinese Drywall Litigation and Insurance CoverageEvaluating First-Party Property Claims with Multiple Causes Under the Efficient Proximate Cause DoctrineCatastrophic Tornado and Flood Claims: Steps to Avoid Bad Faith ExposureReinsurance CaseWatch: Insurance – Decisions from The Insurance and Reinsurance Report – January 3, 2011CaseWatch: Insurance – Decisions from The Insurance and Reinsurance Report – September 27, 2010Goldberg Segalla’s Reinsurance Review – October, 2011 Comments
re: California Court Denies Rescission of Insurance Policy on Tue, May 8 2012 11:28 AM
California's law of rescission is Draconian. The trial court seems to have ignored the testimony of the underwriter that established that the false answer on the application was material. Since materiality is subjective if the individual who decided to insure the risk says it was material it was and rescission should have been granted.
Seems like the trial court erred and should be reversed.