A Thursday Phone Call, a Saturday Burst Pipe
Priya signed a purchase agreement on a 1968 split-level, and the lender demands proof of insurance at Friday's closing. Thursday at 4:40 p.m. she called her agent, who said, 'You're bound. I have binding authority up to $500,000 and I'll issue the policy Monday.' The dwelling limit was set at $420,000 replacement cost with a $1,000 deductible. By phone she answered the application questions: no prior losses, owner-occupied, no business on the premises. On Saturday the supply line to the upstairs toilet failed and water ran for hours; repairs are estimated at $46,000. The insurer's inspection report then surfaced a 2022 fire loss at Priya's previous home ($61,000, paid by another carrier) and knob-and-tube wiring in the attic. The insurer sent notice rescinding the policy and returned the $1,860 premium. Priya also rents a room to a lodger, which she never mentioned.
1. Was there an insurance contract in force on Saturday, before any policy was issued?
Read the worked answer
Yes, on these facts. A binder is a temporary contract of insurance, and it does not have to be written. An agent with actual authority to bind up to $500,000 is the insurer's agent for that purpose, so the Thursday statement created coverage effective then, incorporating the terms of the policy that was to be issued, including its conditions and exclusions. The fact that the policy itself was not yet issued does not defeat the binder; binders commonly run for a stated period (often 30 days) or until the policy is issued or the risk is declined.
The strong counterargument is that the binder was conditioned on satisfactory underwriting, and the insurer will argue the inspection was part of the bargain. That argument only works if the binder or the law made coverage expressly conditional; a general 'subject to underwriting' phrase in an agency manual is usually not enough against the insured. The loss was also fortuitous and unrelated to the conditions the insurer now cites.
So the starting point is coverage from Thursday, with the insurer bearing the burden of proving a condition, exclusion, or ground for rescission.
2. Can the insurer rescind for the answer about prior losses, the wiring, and the lodger? What is the effect on the Saturday loss?
Read the worked answer
Rescission is possible but not automatic, and it is where this case turns.
The insurer must show the misstatements were material, meaning a reasonable insurer would have declined the risk or charged a different rate, and that it relied on them. A $61,000 fire loss two years earlier, knob-and-tube wiring, and an undisclosed lodger all plausibly meet that test; each affects eligibility or rating.
Then the state-law question matters. Some states allow rescission for innocent misstatement, some require intent, and most require prompt notice, return of premium (done here), and compliance with statutory cancellation or rescission procedure. If Priya answered truthfully and the agent simply did not ask, or asked only some questions, the insurer's reliance argument weakens.
A finding of intentional misrepresentation supports rescission or denial under the policy's concealment or fraud condition, which typically voids coverage for the whole policy. If rescission is effective, there is no coverage for Saturday and the agency faces an E&O claim for binding a risk it never submitted. If a court refuses rescission, the policy stands, but the insurer may still reform the premium or cancel prospectively.
3. What happens to the mortgagee's interest if rescission is upheld, and what duties did the agent owe?
Read the worked answer
Mortgagee. The lender is protected by the standard mortgage clause, which is a separate contract between insurer and mortgagee. It typically provides that the mortgagee's interest is not invalidated by the insured's acts, that the insurer will give the mortgagee notice of cancellation or nonrenewal, and that the insurer may pay the mortgagee and then subrogate against the insured. On these facts the lender's interest in the damaged dwelling would likely be recognized to the extent of its insurable interest, even if Priya's own claim fails, with the insurer then pursuing her.
Agent duties. The agent owed duties to submit the risk promptly, to complete an accurate signed application, to disclose any binding conditions, and not to promise coverage the carrier had not accepted. Saying 'you're bound' minutes before closing, then submitting an application with answers nobody documented, is the classic E&O fact pattern. The agency should tender to its E&O carrier, produce the call record, and expect the insurer to cross-claim for any amount it pays the insured or mortgagee.