Pegos

Unless it has conducted a reasonable investigation as to the insurability of its insured, an insurance company may not rescind an automobile insurance policy based upon the material misrepresentations of its insured after the insured injures a third party. (Barrera v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 659, 681 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 106 , 456 P.2d 674 ] (Barrera).) This requirement is to protect the public from injury by the insured’s acts rather than to reward a dishonest insured.

We conclude this obligation to investigate applies when the insured adds a new car to an existing insurance policy. We conclude the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment motion of plaintiff United Services Automobile Association (USAA).

Triable issues of fact remain here as to whether: (a) USAA conducted a reasonable investigation into the use of the car USAA added to Rosie L. Hall’s existing insurance policy; and (b) Hall told USAA she did not intend to use that car as a taxicab. We shall reverse the judgment.

Factual Background

On November 3, 1999, Hall asked a representative of USAA, Scott Cameron, to add two cars to her existing insurance policy: a 1990 Ford…