Key Takeaway
Court criticizes insurance carrier's sloppy copy-and-paste affidavit with wrong policyholder name, highlighting importance of careful document preparation in rescission cases.
When insurance carriers seek to rescind policies based on material misrepresentation, meticulous attention to detail in court filings is absolutely critical. The case Infinity Ins. Co. v Nazaire serves as a stark reminder that courts notice when attorneys take shortcuts with their documentation—and they’re not impressed.
The Importance of Proper Documentation in Insurance Rescission Cases
Insurance rescission cases, particularly those involving denial of claims based on garaging misrepresentations, require careful presentation of evidence. Courts expect thorough, accurate documentation that supports the carrier’s position. When that documentation appears hastily assembled or contains obvious errors, it undermines the entire case.
This judicial criticism echoes concerns we’ve seen in other contexts where sloppy papers can derail even strong cases. The difference between a successful rescission action and a dismissed case often comes down to the quality of the supporting documentation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Infinity Ins. Co. v Nazaire, 2016 NY Slip Op 31454(U)(Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2016)
This is a PA rescission case based upon a garaging issue. The Court caught on to something interesting. First, the EUO of the Defendant was not annexed to the moving papers. Second, the Court found the investigator affidavit to be hearsay.
Third, the footnote said:
“The affidavit of the plaintiffs litigation specialist appears to be, in the antiquated words of one court, a “mere mechanical job of paste pot and shears” (TC. Theatre Corp. v Warner Bros. Pictures, 113 F Supp 265, 271 , rearg denied 125 F Supp 233 ). The boilerplate text of her affidavit is formatted in regular size font, while the variables are highlighted in bold size font to make it easier for her to make changes depending on the facts of a particular claim. Her affidavit here does not have all of the correct variables. Notably, para 23 of her affidavit refers to one Nandslie Jean Louis as the policyholder, rather than Jude.”
Interesting read. My advice to Plaintiff insurance carrier counsel: slow down and proof read. Being a speed demon does not make friends in the judiciary…
Key Takeaway
This case demonstrates that courts scrutinize insurance carrier documentation closely and will call out obvious template errors. Similar to situations where critical documents are missing from filings, careless preparation can sink an otherwise viable case. Quality control in document preparation is essential for successful insurance litigation.
