Key Takeaway
Florida court case on material misrepresentation in no-fault insurance applications and ab initio policy cancellation requirements under Florida law.
Universal Health Chiropractic, P.C. v Infinity Prop. & Cas. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50350(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
No preclusion here.
“The vehicle involved in the accident at issue was, at the time of the accident, insured by defendant under a Florida automobile insurance policy issued to plaintiff’s assignor. After an investigation into the accident revealed that the assignor had not resided at the Florida address listed on her insurance application and that her vehicle had not been garaged at that Florida address, defendant cancelled the policy ab initio, pursuant to Florida Statutes Annotated, title 37, § 627.409, which permits retroactive cancellation of an insurance contract if there has been a material misrepresentation in an application for insurance”
“Under Florida law, in order to show that it voided a motor vehicle policy ab initio, pursuant to Florida Statutes Annotated, title 37, § 627.409, an insurer must demonstrate that it gave notice of the rescission to the insured and that it returned or tendered all premiums paid within a reasonable time after the discovery of the grounds for avoiding the policy”
What would have happened had it not been the assignor who committed the material misrepresentation in the procurement? The general deemer statute would have probably been effective and carrier would have had to pay benefits.
Related Articles
- A primer on Florida Law
- Material Misrepresentation in Insurance Procurement: New York Law Protects Policyholders
- Identity Fraud in Insurance Policy Procurement: Long Island NYC Legal Guide
- Fraudulent procurement and preclusion
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Florida’s insurance law provisions cited in this 2014 decision, particularly Florida Statutes § 627.409 regarding material misrepresentation and policy rescission requirements, may have been amended or supplemented by regulatory changes since publication. Additionally, New York courts’ interpretation of out-of-state insurance laws in no-fault contexts and the application of general deemer statutes may have evolved through subsequent case law. Practitioners should verify current Florida statutory provisions and recent New York appellate decisions addressing cross-jurisdictional insurance coverage disputes.
