UNSATISFIED CLAIM AND JUDGMENT FUND BOARD, JOHANNES LEPPIK AND VALDEK LEPPIK, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE BAR HARBOR INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., AND INLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an insurer can rescind a policy due to material misrepresentations, and the delay in asserting a reservation of rights was not unreasonable.
Inland Mutual Insurance Company issued a policy based on an application with material misrepresentations about the insured's driving record and prior …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Automobile Liability Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Inland Mutual Insurance Company issued automobile liability insurance to Valdek Leppik based upon an application which contained material misrepresentations concerning the insured’s driving record and cancellation of prior insurance by another company. While the insured disclosed these matters to his insurance agent, the agent did not disclose insured’s full record to Inland.
Inland was apprised of these misrepresentations on July 4, 1963 and asserted a reservation of rights on October 31, 1963. This reservation of rights informed the insured of the possibility that Inland might rescind the insurance policy due to the misrepresentations.
District Judge Harvey held that Inland could properly rescind the policy based upon the material misrepresentations, and that the 120 day delay from the date Inland learned of the misrepresentations till it asserted a reservation of rights was not an unreasonable delay on which the insured could base a waiver. Estoppel is likewise inapplicable because the appellants have shown no reliance to their detriment. The findings of the District Judge are clearly correct and the judgment is
Affirmed.