AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

MI- Va-1-A israq April 91, 2013 Page J at O court found Wood "wCrc'i. s acting adverse to rtstrred sj Irdetests when she tied on rho r di wai application- Had sloe been honest st in completingcomplefing the appl3c tlrar€s (the his ure.dj would have been able to submit, a tl"Iy claire underfidte Fl Iflnanciad lnst tion pont - Thus, s, lying on the application,, jthe insured did not Caen in any gray:" Id, at 302, :As in the current case, "had any other officer or director filled out the application. there would be no question that Wood's knowledge wauld not be imputed to Ahe insured] and the ... Pulecy would mmain irr eRect. It would be unjust to rescind the policies now., simply because the [ernployeej happened to be the one who Med out the appfllcation." Id at 305. The same result was reached in Puget Sound htat7 Bank u. St. Pau Fir- & Madge fns. Co., 32 Wash, App. 32, ens P.2d 1122 (Wash, Ct App_1982), There the court hald thatt'he adysrsa inten�,st exception applied, and user: though the def412�Nna officer vias a Nirectnr, he was not tP "sole repreaentat ." The insured had a beard of directors, at. whose behest he `rifled out the applicgi'ron, and who. had no knowted e of the director's wrongdoing. The Court found that conceahment of his wrongdoing on the application `vas not in the best lrreresis" €af the insured, and therefom their irr;erests v.ras adverse, id. at 43, stw iafso Ma.Va rd Cas. Co. v i ulse Indust. Lnav & frnrestwe � Co., 83 F.2d 14 (10th Cir_1936). In the present case, eney and Sinfpata were no{ sang in the tereet of the DisVic1 and therefore their knowledge will not be irrputed to defeat covet e. Regardless of whether Hartford I!z abla to convinoa a court that coverage #under the 2010 policy was fbr ieited by the very fraud Hartford had agreed to insure, Hartford ignores the fact that virrian the fraud was committed, Hatftprd afforded coverage under Its 2007 policy. Although the insurigd may not hive "discovered" the theft drudria %91041 policy period, becaus-- Hartford gsserts that it vmul<d not Have issued the 2010 policy but: for the statements in the applicaffon, then n court certainly will find coverage under Hartfamrs adder" policy to avoid a m5elture. "Forfeltures .. , are not favor rid; heace a non-vact, and c--mdfflons in s contract, will If, possible be con'ttwed to avoid forfeiture. This is partiwlarty true of insurance contra." O'kformw v Barad, 27 C -2I. 2d 7V,, 800.801 (194e) (citations rzrrtitL-d); see else Rccf a Acrd. Fgwly Specially Iris. Co„ 130 Cel. Agip, 4th 926. 943 (2005). We appy a ate Harlford's e rrvssod wilfingness to continue discussing this matter. The District would be Happy to meet for further discussion. Ary truly yours, R-arron L Weinstein 19 9Z abed - 'T V J