Laserfiche WebLink
IMr, Valerior0 <br />aril 11. 2013 <br />HISrtitkrd also relies on Section F d file Policy, u <br />void in any calse of frawd by you as it relates to, mis P ailcy at any lure. it is also vola rr <br />you or any other insured, at any tim e, fnEentionafiy corkcaal o,- misr pr sant. Materia; <br />tact concerning _..ibis p'o'licy —,' Ths t-3rms "You or any gather inaured' curly refer to <br />the riamQd insureds on; her'a, the District is the rkarnad insured, The to rm is not <br />defiried to indudmIsrepresentafiens by employees or agents of the Distdot, and there <br />is no evidence that the Dista'lot Intenfiotmily aonceared or rrrisrspresented a m tectal fact <br />concerning tl Policy. Any,ambigu les as to v o roust engage in the <br />rnismpresentaiions vrllf be construed against Frardord.'[Aja insurer VAI. oWshes to <br />condition its tontractual liabifity upon the lnsuradts conformance. wiah certaln conduct <br />must clo sr, in clear, utlam ig0aus ianguaga." Hoa'- RubbnfCo., Inc. v. Am. Scor las. <br />Co., 14 Cal. act 45. 6 (1975), <br />In addition, the policy also .provides coverage the failure of an amploy to <br />,aftht"ulry perform his of her duties as prescribed bylaw, which results in loss of money <br />or Esther property, Endorsement 3, If Sinipata's failure to Wthfulry Aridaccurat--bj <br />cor'mpl is the appifcation for insurance resulted in loss for which the Drstri bt would <br />otherwise be entified to coviarago under this policy, then this loss user, Nvould be <br />covared underthe Poky. <br />The 2010 policy was renewed for the saerke premium as the prey errs ye;�Js. <br />Ha;rtf'ord race vedfts full premiums to insure against this very ris[c Hardord has ea ed <br />ft prerrrivar for con iaauous coverage, and it would be inequftable to afiow Har1ford tz <br />forfeit the Covemqe because of the very t*tt it agraed to coater, simply ba.-ause the <br />perpetrator happened to be the same person that was assigner the administrative `ask <br />of filling outthe renewal application. Sge R id v Am orfcan Fgrrf Spasaany Ins, CO,, <br />130 Ca[.App.4th 925 (2905). <br />As <br />29 )- <br />As tr as the District was concerned, thie anslrvers on 1ha application for 201 j <br />were current. The Ustrict concealed' nothing. la an yoase had filled out ahs applicallon <br />instead of Seeney or Sinip ta, the ans eers ur oubted[y would have beim the same and <br />+.ire would be no issue as to misrepresentation or conce-lmant- Furftrmcrs, tho <br />ansVlers on the, 20110 renswat p li .tion wel-- virtually the same as. on the prior <br />app rratfca.- nothing material in the District's procedures had changed. <br />leitf;er Swriey. nor Sinipata was authorized to access the signature platc-s <br />without poor approval. T'he Ract Haat they irra mperly awessed the plates, unt nownst <br />tea arkyone etre in the Dr ri t, was part of dove they perpetrated their erg l" e t <br />sGheme. Moreover, i Section E2 o, the 2010 applicelicin the M trtpt states That <br />facsimile plates are used for signatures, but does not a spond to the question of who <br />can use thein or b y they are safeguarded. Hartford did not --veniroffow up on thls <br />quesbon arid, at,--ordingly, the inforrnatican clearly utas not mate al to Hartford's <br />undenrarlting, <br />l�iarf ord argues that the Dist ct misrepmsenfed the Oompute-r controls, ori or <br />shoWd have had systuaiMs in pla:.e to detect unrrsuaf activity. However, on both the 2010 <br />lb <br />CZ abed - 3 t L <br />