Tort Law

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Insurance False Representation and the related topic of personal injury. For more information about insurance see the pages on Wikipedia.

Insurance False Representation-Cases

2009 Portillo v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 277 Va. 193, 671 S.E.2d 153.
Insured committed material misrepresentation in not disclosing the number of persons of driving age living in the household, and this was a basis for voiding the policy.

2001 Commercial Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Hunt & Calderone, P.C., 261 Va. 38, 540 S.E.2d 491.
Insurance false representation.Accounting firm brought action against professional liability insurer for declaratory judgment that its “claims made” policy covered liability to client for missing deadline for tax credit. Insurance company denied claim on basis of alleged misrepresentation in application. To rely upon this defense, insurance company must show statement was untrue and insurance company relied upon false statement in material way in company’s decision to write policy. In this case, evidence failed to establish that. Under this “claims made” policy, accounting firm had burden to produce evidence that it met the terms of the condition precedent to coverage required at inception of policy, it had no knowledge of error or any other basis to reasonably anticipate that claim would be covered by policy. That burden was met by insured.

1999 Smith v. Colonial Ins. Co. of Cal., 258 Va. 30, 515 S.E.2d 775.
Insurance false representation in application for automobile insurance, those false statements are not barred by parol evidence rule. In this case, insured misstated that she was owner of vehicle. In fact, vehicle was owned by unlicensed driver who did not live with her. Insured further misstated that there were no other licensed drivers in her household. If carrier had been properly informed of those facts, premium would have been substantially higher. Carrier has met its burden in this case and clearly proved that such statement were material to the risk when assumed and were untrue. The application for insurance in this case is simply an offer to enter into insurance and is not the contract itself and therefore, parol evidence rule would not apply.

1963 Virginia Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm, 204 Va. 783, 133 S.E.2d 277.
Insurance false representation that wife had never been issued driver’s license. Wife was subsequently involved in accident. Issue of materiality is evaluated in light of whether fact, if known, would have substantially increased chance of loss so as to bring about rejection of risk or increased premium. Although misrepresentations in this case may have been grounds for denial of coverage, company’s actions after learning of these facts constituted waiver of any policy defense.

1963 Virginia Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Saccio, 204 Va. 769, 133 S.E.2d 268.
Misrepresentations of facts material to risk assumed in application for insurance render contract void ab initio. Here judgment defendant had obtained insurance pursuant to assigned risk plan. Policy was obtained through fraudulent representations and was subsequently cancelled after SR-21 form was submitted by carrier indicating there was coverage. Filing of SR-21 did not estop carrier from subsequently denying coverage.