1.0
Car Insurance Application Form: How Court Awarded $11,573:55 Car
Accident Claim To Illinois Car Accident Survival Despite His Breach Of Car
Insurance Policy
1.1 Audience and court observers were thrown
into surprises on the 1st day of February 2019, when the Appellate Court of
Illinois awarded the sum of $11,573:55 being a car accident claim to a car
accident survival, Andrew Koziol in a breach of car insurance contract
involving his insurance company, Direct Auto Insurance Company (DAIC).
1.2 The Presiding Justice,
Honorable Justice Hall was reported to have awarded $11,573:55 car accident
claims to Andrew Koziol on the basis that his omission of vital information on
his car insurance application form was not enough for Direct Auto Insurance
Company (DAIC) to cancel his car insurance policy.
1.3 This view was contrary
to the conditions attached to the car insurance policy which absolved (DAIC) of
any car accident claim in the event of any representation or information
provided by Andrew Koziol in the car insurance application form was discovered
to be false, omitted, or has material misstatement.
1.4 A reliable source
disclosed that Andrew Koziol had acquired a car insurance policy from (DAIC),
and while he was driving, it was reported that he had a collision with a public
utility pole sometime in 2013.
1.5 It was gathered that
(DAIC) denied Andrew Koziol's car accident claims concerning bodily injury he
sustained in the car accident.
1.6 Andrew Koziol was
reported to have approached a trial court before Honorable Justice David B.
Atkins of the Circuit Court of Cook County soliciting a car accident claim.
1.7 At the end of the
trial, Honorable Justice David B. Atkins was said to have awarded the sum of
$11,573:55 to Andrew Koziol being a car accident claim for a breach of car
insurance contract involving (DAIC).
1.8 It was learned that
(DAIC) approached the Appellate Court of Illinois for a review but the justices
of the aforementioned court were reported to have concluded that the Circuit
Court of Cook County (trial court) applied their reasonings while entering a
car accident claim judgment in favor of Andrew Koziol.
navy-pier-chicago
Navy Pier In Chicago,
Illinois
Question: Why Auto
Insurance Companies In The United State Of America Denied Car Policyholders'
Car Accidents Claims?
(a) Answer: Car accident
claim has generated a lot of legal controversies between automobile insurance
policyholders and car insurance companies in the United State of America in recent
times.
(b) Information gathered
reflected that car insurance companies had attributed the following reasons for
denying car accident claim companies in the United State of America.
(i) Expired Insurance
Premium: An automobile insurance company is not expected to be liable to pay a
car accident claim where the car policyholder is indebted and unable to pay
insurance premium as at when due.
(ii) Automobile insurance
companies can deny car accident claims of car policyholders where the contents
of the declaration page never provide coverage for such car disasters. At-fault
car driver with a personal car insurance policy should not expect his
automobile insurance company to repair his vehicle except he has uninsured
vehicle coverage.
(iii) Breach Of Car
Insurance Policy Terms And Conditions: A car policyholder with a personal car
coverage policy should not expect a car accident claim in the event of a road
accident while driving a commercial vehicle.
(iv) In recent times, a
car insurance company denies an automobile policyholder car accident claim
because of insufficient supporting documents like doctors’ medical reports,
police accident reports, and evidence of medical tests (x-ray).
(v) A car insurance
company reserved the sole right to deny a car policyholder's car accident claim
where the conduct of the insurance carrier is fraudulent. For example, the
falsification of vital information on car accident claims may lead to an
outright claim rejection.
2.0 The Car Insurance
Policy Between Andrew Koziol And Direct Auto Insurance Company
2.1 Andrew Koziol was
reported to have purchased a car insurance policy on April 8, 2013, from Direct
Auto Insurance Company (DAIC) to provide coverage for his “2008 Dodge Charger”
motor car.
2.2 All the necessary car
insurance application forms were dully attended to by Andrew Koziol and
submitted through his agent to (DAIC).
2.3 It was gathered that
the conditions attached to the car insurance policy were exhibited in the car
insurance application forms to reflect the powers, limitations, rights, and
privileges of both Andrew Koziol and (DAIC) in the car insurance policy.
2.4 One of the conditions
as included in the car insurance application forms stated clearly that (DAIC)
relied solely on the statements supplied by Andrew Koziol in his car insurance
application forms to issue a car insurance policy to him.
2.5 In addition, another
condition further stated that (DAIC) would not be bound to provide car accident
claim if any representation contained in the car insurance application forms
was discovered to be false, misleading, even contains a direct
misrepresentation, omission, concealment of facts, or incorrect statements.
2.6 (DAIC) also stated in
the condition that it had the power to declare any car insurance policy null
and void provided such policy contains the ingredient of material
misrepresentation, false, omission, concealment of facts, and incorrect
statements.
2.7 It was further learned
that Andrew Koziol was reported to have endorsed all the car insurance
application forms to seal the car insurance deal.
2.8 Information revealed
clearly that while Andrew Koziol was driving his “2008 Dodge Charger” car on
July 21, 2013, he had an accident with a public utility pole and his vehicle
was reported to have been damaged, and Andrew he was fortunate enough to have
survived in the said motor car accident.
2.9 Immediately after the
motor car accident, Andrew Koziol was said to have filed a car accident claim
under his car insurance policy with (DAIC).
2.10 It was reported that
(DAIC) investigated Andrew Koziol's motor accident, concluded to deny him a car
accident claim over the said road car accident, and even rescinded the entire car
insurance policy.
2.11 As a result of the
above, on September 25, 2014, Andrew Koziol was reported to have contacted his
auto claims attorney to institute a breach of contract action against Direct
Auto Insurance Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
2.12 In the said breach of
contract legal suit, Andrew Koziol was reported to have sought a car accident
claim to include a car accident bodily injury claim and property damage
liability claim from Direct Auto Insurance Company for its refusal to provide
coverage for his accident.
2.13 Conversely, on
November 19, 2014, Direct Auto Insurance Company was reported to have also
filed a declaratory judgment action through its auto claims attorney against
Andrew Koziol.
2.14 In the said suit,
Direct Auto Insurance Company contended that Andrew Koziol provided material
misrepresentation on his car insurance application forms during the acquisition
of his car insurance policy.
2.15 Direct Auto Insurance
Company argued that those material misrepresentations were fraudulent which had
rendered the car insurance policy of Andrew Koziol technically void ab initio.
car-insurance-application-form
Car Insurance Application
Form
3.0 Pleadings Of The Auto
Claims Attorney Hired By Direct Auto Insurance Company (DAIC) For Car Insurance
Policy’s Rescission.
3.1 While the appeal was
before the Appellate Court of Illinois, (DAIC) was reported to have hired the
services of auto claims attorney, namely, James P. Newman, of James P. Newman
& Associates, LLC to prosecute the review case in the superior court.
3.2 Findings conducted
revealed that the argument adduced by the auto claims attorney hired by (DAIC)
before the Appellate Court to deny Andrew Koziol auto claims attorney was that
he had completely failed to disclose, in his car insurance application forms,
the existence of his parents’ motor car, and the said motor car was said to
have been registered to and kept in his home.
3.3 Furthermore, the auto
claims attorney hired by (DAIC) argued that the failure of Andrew Koziol to
disclose information about those additional vehicles in his household, and in
his car insurance application forms had rendered the entire car insurance
policy null and void, and of no legal effect.
3.4 Conversely, Andrew
Koziol was reported to have refuted the argument adduced by the auto claims
attorney hired by (DAIC) in the context that his parents resided in the same
building but not the same unit, and that those pieces of information had been disclosed
in his car insurance application forms.
3.5 While challenging the
pleadings advanced by the auto claims attorney hired by (DAIC), Andrew Koziol
was reported to have disclosed that his parents were specifically excluded from
his car insurance policy.
3.6 In addition, Andrew
Koziol exhibited before the Appellate court of Illinois that (DAIC) failed to
provide any evidence that he ever drove the 2002 Ford Explorer XLS, which
belonged to his parents with a separate car insurance policy from State Farm,
or that his parents ever drove his “2008 Dodge Charger” motor vehicle.
Auto Claims Attorney Near
Me: How To Access An Auto Claims Attorney In The United States Of America?
(a) Answer: In recent
times, the processes involved in the location and identification of competent
auto claims attorneys in the United State of America to handle complex auto
accident claims-related cases have not been easy to figure out.
(b) Today in the United
State, roads accidents victims, most especially those that involved bodily
injuries have experienced a lot of difficulties accessing auto claims attorneys
who understand the legal languages of Judges and have the legal technicalities
to win complex cases of roads accident.
(c) Findings conducted
revealed that auto claims attorneys near me can be found in the following ways:
(i) Community Enquiries –
Under this category, car policyholder is expected to make inquiries about auto
claims attorney from the community most especially from the people who might
have encountered the same or similar road accident problems. Victims of road
accidents in the past are in better positions to refer auto claims attorneys to
a road accident casualty.
(ii) Google Searches: With
the help of Google searches on the internet, road accident victims can access
auto claims attorneys who are closer to them and who can handle their complex
legal problems.
(iii) Professional
Associates Referrals: Friends, families, and other professional associates of
auto claims attorneys could be reference points to victims of road accidents in
the United State. Inquiries from professionals like Accountants, Medical
Doctors, and Marketers in the area of residence of the road accident victims
could be of help in the identification of competent auto claims attorneys.
car-insurance-policy
Auto Claims Attorneys
Reviewing Car Insurance Policy
4.0 The Judgement Of The
Court Of Appeals Of Illinois On Omission Of Vital Information On Car Insurance
Application Forms
4.1 While making his final
judgment in the case of breach of contract lawsuit instituted by Andrew Koziol
against Direct Auto Insurance Company (DAIC), the presiding judge namely,
Justice Hall said that (DAIC) had presented nothing in its pleadings to support
its conclusion that additional people residing with Andrew Koziol who were not
drivers his vehicle increased the risk being insured against.
4.2 Furthermore, the
presiding judge was reported to have said that (DAIC) never adduced evidence
that Andrew Koziol’s parents ever drove his vehicle, nor was there any evidence
presented that Andrew Koziol drove the vehicle of his parents.
4.3 Information gathered
reflected that the presiding judge was reported to have ruled that (DAIC) had
not presented evidence that it would not have issued the car insurance policy
if the additional vehicle had been disclosed in the car insurance application
forms, except for the increased premium, as justification for the rescission.
4.4 In supporting the
arguments advanced by the auto claims attorneys hired by Andrew Koziol, the
Presiding Judge, Justice Hall, said that the omission of an additional vehicle
while filing the car insurance application forms was not a material
misrepresentation as contemplated by section 154 of the Code.
4.5 In awarding the sum of
$11,573.55 auto accident claims in favor of Andrew Koziol, the three panels of
justices were reported to have affirmed the pronouncements of the Circuit Court
of Cook County was affirmed.
auto-claim-attorney
An Auto Claim Attorney
5.0 Editorial Opinions:
The Impacts Of Omitted And Vital Information On The Car Insurance Application
Form
5.1 The needs to express
contrary opinions to the pronouncements of the three Panel of Justice namely,
Justice Hall, Justice Lampkin, and Justice Rochford sitting in the Appellate
Court of Illinois, in the case of breach of contract legal suit between Andrew
Koziol and Direct Auto Insurance Company are pertinent in many ways.
5.2 One of the reasons to
hold a contrary view to the verdict of this court has been perceived from the
facts that the court agreed with (DAIC) that Andrew Koziol completely failed to
disclose information about his parents’ 2002 Ford vehicle in his car insurance
application forms with (DAIC).
5.3 It will be more
logical to allege that Andrew Koziol breached the car insurance contract with
(DAIC) in the sense that he failed to respect the conditions attached to the
car insurance application forms.
5.4 One of the conditions
expressly stated that (DAIC) would not be bound to provide coverage if any
representation or information provided by Andrew Koziol in the car insurance
application forms was discovered to be false, omitted, or has material
misstatement.
5.5 When Andrew Koziol
acquired the car insurance policy from (DAIC), information revealed clearly
that he endorsed all the terms and conditions as stated in the car insurance
application forms of the insurance deals. Those endorsements indicated that he
was bound by the conditions of the insurance deals.
5.6 When an impartial mind
juxtaposes the agreement of the court that Andrew Koziol omitted vital
information on his car insurance application forms with the endorsement of
Andrew Koziol on the conditions related to omitted information on his car
insurance application forms, it will be wise to say that the pronouncements of
the court were not fair to Direct Auto Insurance Company.
5.7 From the legal point
of view, a court should not approbate and reprobate at the same time. A court
should avoid its legal somersault.
5.8 Direct Auto Insurance
Company has the legal right to appeal the pronouncements of the three Panel of
Justice namely, Justice Hall, Justice Lampkin, and Justice Rochford in the
superior court.
5.9 The legal implication
of omission of vital information on the car insurance application forms has
been to render the car insurance policy null and void, of no legal effect.
6.0 Readers’ Opinions -
Post Your Comments
6.1 Readers are enjoined
to express their personal opinions below as it affects Direct Auto Insurance
Company and Andrew Koziol.
Post a Comment