Thou shalt not be rewarded for misrepresentations!

Written by Collett P Small. Esquire on . Posted in General

That was generally the tone of the Third District Court of Appeal in the case of GRG Transport, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London , et al. , 896 So.2d 922 (3rd DCA, March 2, 2005). The Third District Court of Appeal held that the policy was voided by an insured's misstatement in the application for insurance that no insurer in the past five years refused to renew or cancelled insurance.

In December 1998, GRG, a cargo-transportation company, with the assistance of their insurance agent, South Pacific Professional Insurance, Inc., applied to Lloyd's of London (Lloyd's) for cargo insurance with a policy limit of $250,000 per truck. As with most applications for insurance, GRG were required to fill out an insurance application form. Question 16 of the insurance application inquired about the applicants' "loss experience whether insured or not on All Risks/Broad Form basis from first dollar/with no deductible for the past five years." GRG responded "none." Question 19 of the application asked whether any insurer had refused to renew or cancel the applicant's insurance in the past five years. Again, GRG responded in the negative. In question 22, GRG declared that the statements and particulars given on its application for insurance "are true to the best of my/our knowledge and belief. ." Based on GRG's representations on the application for insurance, Lloyd's issued a cargo policy.