A fire insurance policy contains a provision requiring the insured to maintain a working fire alarm system for the entire policy term. The insured disconnects the alarms and a loss occurs. Under California law, the insured's broken promise is best characterized as a breach of:

Why A is correct

A warranty is a promise by the insured that a fact or condition is true or will be maintained, and it can be express or implied. Here the insured expressly promised to keep the alarm system operational, making it a warranty. Under Section 447, the violation of a material warranty or other material provision of a policy entitles the other party to rescind the contract. Unlike a representation, a warranty breach does not require proof of intent to deceive — the breach itself, if material to the risk, gives the insurer a right to rescind.

Why the other options are wrong

• B) A representation is a statement made to induce the contract; the insured's continuing promise to keep alarms working is a warranty, and a material breach of it does not require proof of intent to deceive.
• C) Concealment involves the failure to disclose a material fact during negotiations; here the issue is a broken affirmative promise written into the policy, not an undisclosed fact.
• D) Aleatory describes the unequal exchange of value in insurance contracts; it has nothing to do with the insured's promises or the insurer's remedies for breaching them.

Memory hook

Warranty is a promise to keep a fact true. Break it and the insurer can rescind — no intent required.