In this PIP and Uninsured Motorist case, the trial court upheld Progressive’s rescission of the claimant’s policy based on fraudulent misrepresentations made in procuring said policy. The Court found Plaintiff’s failure to list (in the insurance application) all residents and regular drivers of the policy vehicle amounted to fraud. While Plaintiff argued Progressive should not have been able to argue for rescission post-filing of the lawsuit based on the recent Haydaw decision, the trial court rejected that decision. The court noted Progressive’s clear evidence of the fraud prior to Plaintiff’s deposition distinguished this case from Haydaw.
As a result of the ruling, approximately $70,000 dollars in PIP expenses were summarily dismissed. A potential UM claim for up to $100,000 was also dismissed.
This matter was handled by partner Neil E. Hansen.
