BROADCASTS.com

b'

Lie to an Insurer and Lose Everything 

https://zalma.com/blog

False swearing is a special category of misrepresentation or concealment  because it is made under oath.  In criminal law, false swearing is  called perjury.  If there was any false swearing as to the property that was the subject  of the insurance, it vitiated that policy; if there was false swearing  as to the meat and corn, it vitiated the policy taken out upon those  articles. 

The instruction, in effect, told the jury, that if they  believed there was false swearing with respect to the meat and corn, the  result would be to vitiate policy and that the plaintiff would not be  entitled to recover the policy benefits. [Williams v. Va. State Ins. Co,  55 S.E. 680, 106 Va. 259 (1906)]  In order for a "false swearing" to void an insurance policy, the false  swearing must have been willful, made with respect to a material matter,  and made with the intent to deceive the insurer. [Gould v. M.F.A.  Mutual Insurance Company, 331 S.W.2d 663, 669 (Mo.App.1960); Joiner v.  Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 891 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. App. 1994)]  Where an insurance policy provides that an insured\'s concealment,  misrepresentation, fraud, or false swearing voids the policy, the  insured must have actually intended to defraud the insurer. [West v.  Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Michigan, 402 Mich. 67, 259 N.W.2d  556 (1977)]  

Under Michigan law, fraud must be proved by clear and convincing  evidence, [Disner v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 726 F.2d 1106, 1109-11  (6th Cir. 1984)], even when raised as an affirmative defense.  Therefore, under Michigan law, the insured\'s intent in making a  misrepresentation in a proof of loss is a material fact because it is a  falsely sworn statement. [Madkins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. (E.D.  Mich., 2019)]  Mississippi has a different understanding when there is more than one  part to an insurance policy. A policy insuring various items and fixing  the amount of insurance to be paid on each, is separable, although the  premium is fixed as an entirety; and that because the policy is void as  to one item, that fact does not render it unenforceable as to the  others. [Darden v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 109  Miss. 501, 68 So. 485; Scottish Union & National Ins. Co. v. Warren  Gee Lumber Co., 118 Miss. 740, 80 So. 9, 12, and National Union Fire  Ins. Co. v. Provine, 148 Miss. 659, 114 So. 730.]  On the other hand, in Michigan, even when viewed in a light most  favorable to plaintiff, the evidence presented the trial court  established that plaintiff\'s claims for no-fault benefits were based  upon fraud and false swearing. Reasonable minds could not differ that  plaintiff engaged in fraud for the purpose of recovering no-fault  benefits. 

Because she did so, Farm Bureau had the contractual right to  void the policy and deny her no-fault benefits. [Parker v. Farm Bureau  Gen. Ins. Co. (Mich. App., 2019)]