Errors in application result in revocation of coverage after accident

Vernon Thomas accompanied his mother to the LA Insurance Agency to buy coverage for his car.  He probably had a poor driving record, because Mom represented the car was owned by her and that Vernon would be a "second driver."  Vernon reported no driving violations.  After the purchase was made, the Victoria General Insurance Company and Titan Indemnity cancelled the policy because Thomas did not have a valid driver's license.  He immediately reinstated the license and Victoria General reinstated the policy and accepted premium payments.  One month later, Thomas was in a collision and suffered injuries for which he sought PIP benefits (wage loss and medical).   The insurer refused to pay and voided the policy because Thomas did not disclose his lack of a license or his ownership of the car.  Thomas argued that he had "cured" the license issue and the insurer had accepted his payments.  He also argued that since he signed the Application for insurance in the "applicant" section with his mother, the confusion over ownership of the car should not disqualify him from the insurance he had paid for.  The Court of Appeals rejected his argument and allowed the insurer to void the policy.