Hamza tells the insurance company that his building is equipped with a sprinkler system and that a guard is on duty inside the premises when they are closed. Neither statement is true. The building is destroyed by a windstorm. Do you believe that an intentional misrepresentation by an applicant for insurance should permit the insurer to deny coverage for a loss even if the misrepresented fact had no relationship to the loss? Why?

Yes, any intentional misrepresentations by the applicant should be enough to permit the insurer to deny coverage for a loss even if the misrepresented fact had no relationship to the loss

Explanation:

This is because in case of any intentional misrepresentations the insurer gets a right of recession that is based upon fraud.  

In this case the misrepresentation by Hamza voids the policy ab-initio (i.e. at its inception). This is because the misrepresentations by Hamza in this case were with regards to material facts related to the property and this misrepresentation may have induced the insurer to act and thus insure the property. Here the misrepresentations were that the property had a sprinkler system and always had a guard on duty. These two material misrepresentations led the insurer to make an incorrect risk assessment with regards to property and this incorrect and lower assessment of risk profile of the building led the insurer to provide insurance coverage.

Thus, we can conclude that even though the misrepresentations made by Hamza had no relationship to the loss but still the insurer can deny coverage in this case.

whats the