Life insurers faced with a claim for benefits within two years after policy inception will often conduct a post-claim investigation to ascertain whether the statements made by an applicant about his or her medical history and health habits were accurate. In those cases where an insurer determines that those statements were inaccurate, the insurer may seek to rescind the policy.
But there are exceptions to the principle that inaccurate information in an application automatically gives the insurer an absolute right to rescind. Thus, while the general rule is that an insurer may ordinarily rely upon the accuracy of information provided by the insured (Old Line Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 229 Cal. App. 3d 1600, 1604 (1991)), an insurance company may not “blindly ignore evidence of misrepresentation, collect premiums, and then opportunistically rescind once a claim is filed. Under California law, [t]he right to information of material facts may be waived … by neglect to make inquiries as to such facts, where they are distinctly implied in other facts of which information is communicated. Cal. Ins. Code Section 336. Star Insurance Company v. Sunwest Metals, Inc., 2017 WL 2198969 (9th Cir. 2017).
The key defenses to an insurer’s recession based on alleged misrepresentations include the following:
No actual reliance. In order to support a claim for rescission, the underwriters for a life policy must have relied on the purportedly inaccurate information in recommending that the policy be issued. 6 Couch on Insurance 3d Section 82:10 (“Where a representation is false and relates to a material matter, an insurer which relied thereon in entering into the contract may avoid the contract of insurance when the representation was fraudulently made and in some jurisdictions even when innocently made”); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Abhe & Svoboda, Inc., 798 F. 3d 715, 722 (8th Cir. 2015) (in the insurance context, “reliance examines whether there was a causal connection between the misrepresentation or concealment of [the] material fact and the actual underwriter’s decision to issue the policy…”). Put differently, statements that were not relied on by an insurance company in accepting a risk cannot have been material to its underwriting decision.
No reasonable reliance. Separate and apart from whether an underwriter actually relied on an applicant’s statement, an insurance company’s entitlement to rescission may also depend on whether its supposed reliance was objectively reasonable. In this regard, an insurer has no right to rescind a policy where it has knowledge of facts or sufficient information which would cause a reasonably prudent person to inquire further. ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 494 F.3d 1238, 1250 (10th Cir. 2007). Put differently, an insurer will be denied rescission where there could be no “justifiable reliance” on an insured’s representations. Couch, op. cit., Section 85:7.
Estoppel and waiver. These principles were discussed by the court in Star Insurance. In that case, which involved a policy of fire insurance, the court noted that there were numerous pieces of evidence spanning nearly two years that “distinctly implied” the falsity of information in Sunwest’s insurance application. Among these was information available on the insured’s website and the outcome of site inspection — both of which reflected facts that were inconsistent with the answers in Sunwest’s application.
In these circumstances, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s finding that Star Insurance had possession of information that “distinctly implied” material misrepresentations on the application. The court also found that Star Insurance “failed to satisfy its duty to investigate such evidence. The duty of inquiry requires an insurer to not only ask questions, but also to investigate answers. See DuBeck v. California Physicians Service, 234 Cal. App. 4th 1254, 1267 (2015). Here, Star made inquiries, but then ignored the inadequacy of the answers it received. Having turned a blind eye for nearly two years, Star waived its right to rescind when Sunwest filed a claim.”
The holding in Star Insurance is in accord with the principle in life insurance cases that “when an applicant gives sufficient information to alert an insurance company to his particular medical condition or history, the company is bound to make such further inquiry as is reasonable under the circumstances in order to ascertain the facts surrounding the information given.” Ellingwood v. N.M. Investors Life Ins. Co., Inc., 111 N.M. 301, 308 (1991).
Similarly, an insurer put on notice of such “red flags” is deemed to have knowledge of the facts that a reasonable investigation into those “red flags” would have revealed. Couch, op. cit., Section 85:20. The failure of such an insurer to have carried out such a reasonable investigation will operate to estop that carrier from alleging any misrepresentation in the application which such investigation would have uncovered. See Golden Rule Ins. Co v. Montgomery, 435 F. Supp. 2d 980, 993 (D. Ariz. 2006) (an insurer cannot rescind a policy based on alleged misrepresentations if it has sufficient indications that would put a prudent person on notice so as to induce any inquiry which, if done with reasonable thoroughness, would reveal the truth).
The court in Star Insurance put it this way: “Where an insurer has before it information that plainly indicate[s] that the insured’s statements [are] not true, it has a duty of further inquiry to determine the pertinent facts. Rutherford v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 234 Cal. App. 2d 719, 733-34 (1965). This includes a duty to investigate “information which if pursued with reasonable diligence” would reveal misrepresentations. DuBeck, 234 Cal. App. 4th at 1267 (internal quotation marks omitted).”
This article was originally published in the Daily Journal. View the original post here.
- Partner
Peter S. Selvin, Chair of ECJ's Insurance Coverage and Recovery Department, is a business trial lawyer with more than 30 years of experience. While he specializes in the areas of insurance coverage and international litigation, his ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- “Prejudice” No Longer an Element to Determine Waiver of Right to Compel Arbitration | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Minimum Wage Increases for 2025 | By: Kelly O. Scott
- New Law Prohibits Discrimination on the Basis of Possessing a Driver's License | By: Tanner Hosfield
- LA City Council Approves $30 Minimum Wage for Hotel and LAX Workers | By: Pooja Nair
- New Law Mandates That Employees Can No Longer Be Required to Use Vacation Before Receiving Paid Family Leave Benefits | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Employer Alert: New Whistleblower Poster Required | By: Joanne Warriner
- New Law Expands Posting Requirements Regarding Workers’ Compensation Rights | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014