Key Takeaway
A Florida choice of law analysis leads to successful retroactive rescission, highlighting the importance of understanding different state laws in no-fault insurance cases.
Understanding Retroactive Rescission Under Florida Law
No-fault insurance cases often involve complex choice of law analyses that can dramatically impact case outcomes. In Omphil Care, Inc. v Pearl Holding Group, we see how Florida law’s approach to retroactive rescission differs from New York’s standards, creating strategic challenges for attorneys unfamiliar with out-of-state requirements.
When insurance companies seek to void policies retroactively (ab initio), they must meet specific procedural requirements that vary significantly by jurisdiction. The case demonstrates how defendant insurers can successfully establish prima facie grounds for rescission when they understand and properly apply the relevant state’s legal framework.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Omphil Care, Inc. v Pearl Holding Group Managing Gen. Agent for Ocean Harbor Cas. Ins. Co. 2020 NY Slip Op 50946(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2020)
“It is undisputed by the parties that Florida law applies. Inasmuch as defendant’s cross motion papers demonstrated that a rescission notice was sent to the insured, and that defendant had returned, or tendered, all premiums paid to the insured within a reasonable period of time after defendant’s discovery of the grounds for rescinding the policy, defendant established, prima facie, that it had voided the policy ab initio pursuant to Florida law (see W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Infinity Prop. & Cas. Co., 36 Misc 3d 4, 6-7 , citing Leonardo v State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 675 So 2d 176, 179 ).”
I love how attorneys when told Florida law applies do not put in any effort in to beating back the Defendant’s motion. Has anyone checked out what a Florida attorney fee in a PIP case is?
Key Takeaway
This case illustrates the critical importance of understanding applicable state law requirements in no-fault insurance litigation. When Florida law governs rescission claims, attorneys must be prepared to challenge defendants’ procedural compliance under Florida-specific standards. The failure to adequately respond to policy rescission motions can result in unfavorable outcomes that might have been avoided with proper preparation.
