PIP insurer's attempted cancellation rebuffed
In Blundy v. Secura, Secura Insurance attempted to avoid its obligation to pay PIP benefits to the injured Plaintiff by arguing that the young man's father, who paid for the coverage, had no insurable interest in the car his son was driving. The court rejected this argument, however, because the Blundy family had straightforwardly presented the facts of who owned and would be driving the vehicle, and Secura had underwritten the policy with the knowledge that the young son would be the sole driver. As a result, there was no "material misrepresentation" by the insureds and Secura did not assume any risk that it did not anticipate. Thus, there was no unfairness and no resulting to Secura, and it was not tricked into assuming a risk that it did not bargain for.