Presiding Justice Michael Pesce

Florida insurer Infinity appealed from a decision that awarded provider Craigg no-fault benefits for services provided. Infinity rescinded Craigg’s assignor’s policy ab initio on the ground that material misrepresentations were made during the application process. The parties agreed the sole issue for the civil court was to decide if insurer had to establish the reason for rescinding its policy. The civil court found for Craigg, holding New York law applied, and Infinity was required to present evidence to support the underlying basis for rescission, yet failed. A divided panel found Florida, not New York law, applied as it had the most significant contacts. As such, Florida law did not require an insurer to prove its good-faith basis for terminating a policy. Thus, the panel reversed the judgment, noting Infinity was entitled to judgment dismissing the complaint. The dissent voted to affirm, stating that while Florida law permitted for retroactive cancellation of an automobile policy based on a material misrepresentation, Florida courts required production of evidence establishing the misrepresentation. It stated no competent evidence was presented to establish the claim of misrepresentation other than the conclusion of Infinity.