Kara M. Carper, of the Miami office, successfully opposed a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment based on novel grounds in a PIP case. Specifically, plaintiff, an assignee medical provider, argued that, as a matter of law, the defendant insurer could not rely on an insured’s misrepresentation in the policy application as a coverage defense, as the plaintiff provider was an “innocent assignee” of the insured. Kara successfully opposed this motion, arguing plaintiff could not create coverage where none exists by creative arguments and attempts to stretch the “innocent insured” doctrine beyond its limits. The trial court agreed, observing that the cases relied on by plaintiff largely involved property losses where coverage was already established and a bad act by one insured, such as a misrepresentation during the investigation of the claim, did not bar an innocent insured’s right of recovery. Accordingly, the court denied plaintiff’s motion and held the defense is entitled to rely on the affirmative defense of the insured’s material misrepresentation in the policy application, which, if established at trial, will void coverage from the inception of the policy.