Accelerant Specialty Insurance Co. et al. v. Jorge Zubigaray

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in an action concerning marine insurance coverage for a vessel. The court holds that the insured breached an express survey-compliance warranty and made material misrepresentations regarding his criminal history, traffic violations, and completion of vessel-survey recommendations. The court concludes that these breaches voided the policy from inception.

Holdings

1. Zubigaray breached the policy's express survey-compliance warranty by failing to complete all required marine-risk-survey recommendations and failing to provide the written certification required by the policy.
2. Under New York law, breach of the policy's express marine-insurance warranty voided coverage, even without proof that the breach caused or materially contributed to the vessel's loss.
3. Zubigaray's material misrepresentations and nondisclosures on the marine-insurance application violated uberrimae fidei and independently warranted voiding the policy from inception.
4. The record did not establish that the broker who assisted Zubigaray was Plaintiffs' agent; therefore, the broker's alleged knowledge could not be imputed to Plaintiffs to defeat their reliance on uberrimae fidei.
5. The breach-of-contract counterclaim was moot because the policy was void from inception and therefore no underlying marine-insurance contract existed to support the claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Zubigaray's failure to complete all marine-survey recommendations and provide the required written certification breached the policy's express survey-compliance warranty.
2. Whether, under the governing New York law, breach of the express marine-insurance warranty voided the policy regardless of causal connection between the breach and the loss.
3. Whether Zubigaray's failure to disclose criminal convictions, traffic violations, and incomplete survey recommendations violated the federal maritime doctrine of uberrimae fidei and rendered the policy void from inception.
4. Whether knowledge of the undisclosed information could be imputed to Plaintiffs because the insurance broker assisting Zubigaray was allegedly Plaintiffs' agent.
5. Whether Defendant's breach-of-contract counterclaim remained viable after the policy was declared void.

Disposition

other