The court granted a motion to strike the insurer's new argument that the insured had made misrepresentations in its application for the policy. Great Lakes Ins. v. Gray Group Inves., LLC, 2021 U,S. Dist. LEXIS 243929 (E.D. La Dec. 22, 2021).     Gray Group sought coverage for its yacht, HELLO DOLLY VI, from Great Lakes The application stated that the "primary mooring location" would be the Orleans Marina. The form also stated that the vessel's purchase price was $1,900,000. The application noted that "any misrepresentation in this application for insurance may render insurance coverage null and void from inception."      The policy was issued with coverage up to $1,900,000 and a $228,000 named-insured deductible. The policy stated that the "contract is null and void in the event of non-disclosure or misrepresentation of a fact or circumstances material to our acceptance or continuance of this insurance."     In the spring of 2020 HELLO DOLLY VI was moved from the Orleans Marina to Fort Lauderdale, Floria. Only July 19, 2020, the vessel was moved to Pensacola, Florida, at the home of a member of Gray Group. On September 15, 2020, Hurricane Sally struck Pensacola. The vessel was damaged and sank at its mooring in Pensacola.      Gray Group filed a claim with Great Lakes, claiming a total loss of the vessel. Great Lakes denied coverage on the grounds that Gray Group had breached certain warranties under the policy.     Great Lakes filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy covering HELLO DOLLY VI was void. Great Lakes alleged Gray Group breached certain warranties contained in a Hurricane Questionnaire/Plan, because the vessel (i) was not moored at the Orleans Marina, (ii) was not fully manned, (iii) was not evacuated to safe harbor, and (iv) did not have its anchor deployed. Gray Group filed cross-claims, seeking coverage under the policy.     The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. In opposing Gray Group's motion, Great Lakes argued the policy was void because of misrepresentations in the Application Form. Specifically, it asserted that Gray Group (i) misrepresented the vessel's "primary mooring location" because the vessel was never moored at the Orleans Mariana during the 2020 hurricane season, and (ii) misrepresented the vessel's purchase price. Great Lakes also alleged the misrepresentation it is reply in support of its own motion for summary judgment.     Gray Group moved to strike Great Lakes' claim that Gray Group made material misrepresentations in its Application Form. Gray Group argued that Great Lakes did not allege misrepresentation in its reservation of rights letter, denial of coverage letter, its two complaints, its motion for summary judgment or its statements of disputed or undisputed facts.     The court granted Gray Group's motion to strike. The newly raised misrepresentation claims were not properly before the court. Great Lakes knew from discovery that the vessel was never at its "primary mooring location," but failed to move to amend its complaint to add the misrepresentation claim. Email correspondence indicated that Great Lakes' underwriters had concerns about the vessel's reported valuation as early as four days after the loss of the vessel, and well before the filing of the lawsuit. Again, Great Lakes did not bother to amend its complaint.   

from Insurance Law Hawaii https://ift.tt/3tV8PAY