PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Directors & Officers Liability / See Something, Say Something – Especially on Your Application for Insurance Coverage

See Something, Say Something – Especially on Your Application for Insurance Coverage

February 9, 2018 by Nora Valenza-Frost

FBI Investigator

When is a misrepresentation material on an application for insurance coverage? The Ninth Circuit affirmed a decision from the Central District of California, finding that an answer on an application for D&O insurance was a material misrepresentation, and that therefore the policy was rescinded.

The question on the application asked:

None of the individuals to be insured under any Coverage Part (the “Insured Persons”) have a basis to believe that any wrongful act, event, matter, fact, circumstance, situation, or transaction, might reasonably be expected to result in or be the basis of a future claim?

Professional Collection Consultants (PCC) – the applicant – responded “no.” However, six months before submitting its application, the FBI had executed a search warrant at PCC’s offices. Subsequently, investigators subpoenaed several PCC employees and PCC produced thousands of documents. This information was not disclosed on the application.

When the insurer sought to rescind coverage because the answer to the question constituted a material misrepresentation, PCC argued that “it did not misrepresent the truth because, if the application question is read literally, PCC’s ‘no’ answer informed [the insurer] that PCC was aware of circumstances that could lead to a claim.” Notwithstanding PCC’s possible confusion, “the form instructions stated that a ‘yes’ answer would require applicants to provide ‘detailed information’ about their answer and could precipitate ‘substantially different terms and conditions.’” The court held that, “[g]iven that context, [the insurer] reasonably understood PCC’s answer to mean PCC was not aware of any circumstances that could lead to a claim.”

To PCC’s additional argument, that its answer was immaterial, “a misrepresentation is material when it regards the nature of the risk to be insured.” Here, the misrepresentation concerned the nature of the risk to be insured: the D&O policy covered claims arising from a civil, regulatory, criminal, or administrative proceeding or investigation against PCC or any of the individual insureds. The court concluded “PCC was not entitled to misrepresent the truth about the investigation simply because [the insurer] did not ask a specific question.”

* * * * *

Looking solely at the question on the application, it is difficult to argue that the insured’s answer was not correct in a literal sense. However, the appellate panel was willing to look at the other application language and the overall context when it found in the insurer’s favor. Although courts often go to great lengths to interpret arguably ambiguous language in the insured’s favor, this case demonstrates that litigants should not assume that every court will take that approach in every case. It is difficult to tell from the appellate panel’s decision whether the court was persuaded by the different context of an insurance application (vs. a policy), or the rather egregious fact of failing to mention an FBI investigation, but both factors appeared to work in the insurer’s favor in this case.

Western World Ins. Co. v. Professional Collection Consultants, No. 16-55470 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2018)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Look Beneath the Surface: No Coverage for DC Row House Collapse Under Builder’s Risk Policy

Next Article »

Opening the Pandora’s Box of Flood Policies, or How Filing Suit Against Flood Insurers Can Effectively Reduce the Suit Limitations Period

About Nora Valenza-Frost

Nora Valenza-Frost is an of counsel at Carlton Fields in New York, New York. Connect with Nora on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. Third Circuit Clarifies Abstention Doctrine in Insurance Coverage Declaratory Action
  2. To Boldly Go Where No Insurance Has Gone Before: New Mexico Redefines Portable Coverage
  3. Hypothetically Speaking, Mr. Insurance Commissioner, There Is No Need To Answer.
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing