Fraudulent Procurement
Procurement misrepresentation requires claim-specific denial timing and proof of materiality. The archive separates those defenses from retroactive rescission and out-of-state policy disputes.
14 articles from 2015–2020 · 5 current · 5 reviewed case notes · by Jason Tenenbaum
Current articles
Articles the firm treats as current: published since 2024, or older and re-checked against today's law. Most recently published or reviewed first.
- Material Misrepresentation defense Reviewed Sep 12, 2026 · first published 2020
Alignment Chiropractic v Travelers applied Fatmir to vehicle ownership and use. The insurer failed to prove it would have refused the policy.
- Material Misrepresentation Defenses Must Follow the Insurance Law 3105 Rule Reviewed Sep 12, 2026 · first published 2018
Veksler denied the insurer summary judgment for missing materiality proof. The opinion made no finding of withheld files or an assigned-risk exception.
- Fraudulent procurement has now been changed into a material misrepresentation defense Reviewed Sep 12, 2026 · first published 2016
The November 2016 Renelique ruling applied Fatmir to a residence misrepresentation. Both parties failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment.
- Military Status Misrepresentation Not Enough: Untimely Denial Precludes the Material Misrepresentation Defense Reviewed Sep 12, 2026 · first published 2016
Healthy Way v USAA reinstated a no-fault complaint after an untimely denial. Military-status evidence did not establish the insurer's right to dismissal.
- Fraudulent Procurement Defense Requires Section 3105 Evidence Standards in New York Reviewed Sep 12, 2026 · first published 2016
Compas Medical separated six claims: three involved denial timing and materiality; three raised a dispute over returned verification. Neither side won judgment.
How the firm handles these matters
Reviewed case notes by year
Notes on decisions from earlier years that the firm has re-read against current law. Each note states when it was last reviewed and what has changed since.
2016
Older archive
Case notes as they were written at the time. They have not been re-checked against later decisions, so treat them as history and confirm the current rule before relying on one.
Frequently asked questions
What constitutes a material misrepresentation that voids an insurance policy?
A representation is a statement of past or present fact made to the insurer, by or for the applicant, at or before the making of the contract as an inducement to it; a misrepresentation is a false one (Insurance Law § 3105(a)). It avoids the contract or defeats recovery only if material, and it is material only if knowledge of the true facts would have led the insurer to refuse to make the contract (Insurance Law § 3105(b)(1)). The insurer's practice in accepting or rejecting similar risks is admissible on materiality (Insurance Law § 3105(c)). Common examples: a false garaging address, undisclosed household drivers, the vehicle's true use.
Can an insurer void a no-fault policy retroactively?
For a New York auto policy, the Second Department has said no. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 supplants the insurer's common-law right to cancel retroactively for fraud or misrepresentation and allows cancellation only prospectively, so the policy stays in force for innocent third parties injured in the accident (Insurance Co. of N. Am. v Kaplun, 274 AD2d 293 (2d Dept 2000)). The insurer may still deny benefits to the insured who participated in the fraud and sue that insured to recover what it paid others (Kaplun). The misrepresentation must be material under Insurance Law § 3105(b)(1). Policies issued in other states may be governed by those states' rules.
What is the burden of proof for policy voidance?
The insurer proves both the misrepresentation and its materiality. The statutory test: no misrepresentation is material unless knowledge by the insurer of the facts misrepresented would have led it to refuse to make the contract (Insurance Law § 3105(b)(1)). Evidence of the insurer's practice in accepting or rejecting similar risks is admissible (Insurance Law § 3105(c)), so underwriting guidelines are the usual proof. The statute requires intent only for health-expense policies (Insurance Law § 3105(b)(2)). A proven misrepresentation still does not permit retroactive cancellation of a New York auto policy against innocent third parties (Insurance Co. of N. Am. v Kaplun, 274 AD2d 293 (2d Dept 2000)).