Dentist Who Defrauds His Insurer Can’t Pursue Bad Faith Claim

Post number 5295

See the video at https://rumble.com/v76b870-a-finding-of-fraud-voids-insurance.html    and at https://youtu.be/VqK2H1JB_ZU

In Andy Fletcher Montano v. The Dentists Insurance Company v. Dr. Sandy Fletcher Montano DDS, PLLC, Deer Park Dental, PLLC, No. 24-5202, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (February 19, 2026) Sandy Fletcher Montano appealed pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action against The Dentists Insurance Company (“TDIC”) alleging claims stemming from its denial of insurance coverage under a fraud clause in Montano’s policy.

ANALYSIS & DECISION 

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Montano’s claim for breach of contract because Montano failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was entitled to coverage despite making material misrepresentations that would void his insurance claim.

Washington courts uphold “void for fraud” provisions where the policy expressly states that an insured is not entitled to coverage if that insured intentionally misrepresents or conceals a material fact regarding a claim and that such misrepresentations will void the entire policy.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Montano’s extracontractual claims because the district court’s finding of fraud precluded recovery for bad faith, for Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) violations, or for Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) violations.

Montano failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether TDIC’s investigation of his insurance claim was unreasonable. The District Court’s finding was affirmed since no one should be allowed to recover from his insurer for his own fraud.

ZALMA OPINION

When a District Court concludes that the Plaintiff had committed fraud there is nothing that can defeat an insurance claims when the policy, like every insurance policy issued in the US, contains an exclusion misrepresentation, concealment or fraud the suit against the insurer fails. He brought his appeal pro se because no real lawyer would try to say a convicted fraud perpetrator was entitled to defense and indemnity under a clearly void insurance policy.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.