In a recent decision that underscores the enduring significance of full and accurate disclosure in insurance applications, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favour of an insurer seeking to rescind multiple liability policies on the basis of material misrepresentations. The case, Mt. Vernon Fire Insurance Company v. The Kelemen Company, is a pointed reminder that insureds bear a continuing duty to disclose all relevant information when applying for coverage—even where an affiliated insurer may have received similar information in the past.
Background to the Dispute
The dispute arose after Mt. Vernon Fire Insurance Company issued five consecutive liability insurance policies to The Kelemen Company. The application for coverage included a direct and pointed inquiry—Question 7—which asked whether, within the preceding five years, there had been any claims, complaints, or legal proceedings involving employment-related matters or third-party discrimination or harassment against any person proposed for insurance, including officers or employees.
The insured answered "No."
Mt. Vernon later discovered that, three years prior to the submission of the application, a former employee of an executive at a predecessor company had filed a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and wrongful termination. When that information came to light during litigation involving the insured, the insurer moved to rescind the policies on the basis that the insured's response to Question 7 was materially false.
Insured's Defence and the "Parent Company" Argument
Faced with the insurer's rescission application, the insured sought to mount a defence based on an email chain discovered in a related state court action against the brokers who had assisted with the application. The emails—dated three years prior to the application—showed that Mt. Vernon's parent company had previously received information about the earlier lawsuit and had declined coverage in a related context.
The insured argued that the insurer had misled the court by failing to disclose its prior knowledge and sought relief from the rescission judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits a court to reconsider a judgment on grounds such as fraud or newly discovered evidence.
The Court's Decision
The federal court was not persuaded by the insured's attempt to rely on the email chain. It held that:
- Knowledge by a parent company is not knowledge by the insurer: The fact that Mt. Vernon's parent company had previously reviewed information about the earlier lawsuit did not mean Mt. Vernon itself had knowledge at the time of issuing the policies.
- The email chain was dated before the underlying lawsuit: The court found that the emails could not constitute knowledge of the lawsuit, as they predated the filing of that claim by at least two months.
- Material misrepresentation was sufficient for rescission: The key issue remained the insured's false answer to a direct and material question in the application. The court emphasised that under California law, a misrepresentation is material if it would have affected the insurer's decision to issue the policy, regardless of whether the insurer ultimately suffered prejudice.
- No basis for relief under Rule 60(b): The court found no evidence of fraud or misconduct by the insurer that would justify disturbing the summary judgment previously granted. Moreover, the insured failed to produce compelling evidence that the insurer had drawn an improper inference from the information it possessed.
Legal Principles Affirmed
This judgment reinforces several key principles of insurance law under California jurisdiction:
- Duty of Disclosure: Applicants must answer questions in insurance applications truthfully and completely. A misrepresentation of material facts entitles an insurer to rescind the policy—irrespective of the insured's intent or whether the insurer had indirect knowledge of the truth.
- Materiality Determination: A false answer to a question that would influence an insurer's underwriting decision is material as a matter of law. The insurer need not show that it would have denied the policy outright—only that the disclosure would have affected its decision-making.
- Knowledge Must Be Direct: The court drew a distinction between Mt. Vernon and its parent company, making clear that information previously submitted to an affiliated entity does not absolve an insured of its duty to disclose in subsequent applications.
- Relief from Judgment is Exceptional: Rule 60(b) requires a showing of fraud, misconduct, or newly discovered evidence that would likely change the outcome. Mere suspicion or indirect inferences will not suffice.
Takeaways for Policyholders and Brokers
This case highlights the high stakes involved in the insurance application process and the dangers of incomplete disclosure—particularly where there are changes in business structure or management, or where different affiliates are involved. Importantly, the judgment also sounds a cautionary note for brokers, who may find themselves the subject of separate litigation where insureds seek to deflect blame for misstatements in proposals.
Policyholders should not assume that prior correspondence with related insurers will suffice to satisfy disclosure obligations in new applications. The obligation to provide a full and truthful response lies squarely with the insured.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
