review as to no avail in this case i would ask urge the court to really take a look at it and exercises to novo review because the judge detaining the lower court judge in pamela's case simply missed the law missed the facts and did not get it right at all the real key issue in the thing that is not in dispute is that the insurance company in this case absolutely unequivocally was misled at the very outset of its underwriting process by false statements made to it regarding the nature of the business relationship between mr i any and mr siren it was proposed to take an insurance policy out  end his life with mr siren being the beneficiary and the owner of the policy and at the time lead churchill the agent contacted the underwriting department i n g and inquired about the possibility of getting an insurance policy saying that there was a land of nine million dollars that they wish to have a policy to secure in effect  he was told there were we will need some information about the nature of the relationship between these parties what's their business relationship so a letter goes from church early agent to the insurance company flat out  now it may have been part of a course of conduct which which misrepresentations do you complain about that related to the application for this particular policy this particular policy was a seven point two million dollar policy the reason was seven point two that's not what i had at what i ask is the misrepresenting this representation is that there is a performer these loans are performing paying twelve percent per annum to mr what point in time was that information given on june second then the policy in that part of the policy act was submitted june thirtieth the information on insur tab of the earlier policy that was earlier that was of into early cancelled or not taken mr churchill submitted information explain the relationship on june second on june fourteenth and the application for the first policy was submitted so all of the abc respect when i ask you ali the information climb to be a misrepresentation occurred prior to the of misrepresentations that were arguably prior to the issuance of the first policy right i mean it i think actually their policy before either policy was applied for they came to the insurance company said we'd like to get this policy that's that's a fact that's a factual matter and correct right the all the app all the fraud took place all the misrepresentations took place before the applications were submitted but they had to do with the amount of the insurance that was being applied for why it was being applied for and they falsely represented the nature of the relationship between the parties which was key to the to the entire decision of the company to issue any policy or the there is one company  information came in the fraud occurred in terms of time on june second the first application came in in june fourteenth the second application in june thirtieth but wasn't false there's no question the information was false they falsely represented that this was an ongoing loan that was paying basically ninety thousand dollars a month twelve percent interest on one million dollars dollars it's a ninety thousand month he had been paid a nickel he'd started a lawsuit he was holding a c judgment for twenty million alice that was to be entered upon default and he'd actually defaulted in the in the first two payments on the consent judgment before this june second first representation was made so to suggest that there was no there was that the company was not misled is completely reliant stars interest in selling this policy is that the premiums will be paid i understand the interest in the health benefit the insured no that's that's not very interested in knowing that the person that's going to be the beneficiary of this is really interested in the person whose life is being insured that they have an interest in making sure that person is the better off by having them be alive and making these ninety thousand dollars a month payments than they would be dead and getting the insurance proceeds that the whole idea is you can't have a gambling contract and here what you have is the the interest in the i'm sure it's interested in premiums the insurer isn't it interested in deciding whether or not to assume a risk i just was there's where i'm missing it your your point the risk that the wager let's let's take the worst case the wager won't pay the premiums and that's who you expected to pay no risk that's not the wagering issue at all it's got nothing to do with the payment premiums it's got to do with does the person have a legitimate reason to eat at a record that's best the question of insurable interest in the company does not and the company says tell us about the business relationship and they completely misrepresent what the business relationship is here's where i am kind of falling down and it goes i think they were talking about the underwriting it's the underwriting the truth was and the truth the company says had we known the truth  when everybody knew that they were getting the insurance sort of to back up the loan because they were the company was told it was a performing loan at the time that this letter was written the fact is that i to have some kind of decline policy every payment you make we did we get to subtract a certain amount more the company would only insure up to a certain percentage of the loan for the same reason they're not going to you for the guy to die than for him to be alive i understand it's the whole point sure more but but that doesn't really answer my question if if the whole aspect of this is what we want to make sure you pay the term that doesn't defeat its insurable interest in the future well the policy would still be in effect question is and we want to make sure you're going to repeal along the question when they when they decide whether issue policy or insurer it's because they know you has that but there are many defaults and you say well you've lost your insurable interest oh no he wasn't he hit he didn't they didn't tell him that there'd been a lawsuit and there was a consent judgment and that there was no payments on the first two three million dollars that were supposed to be paid before this letter went out they said this is a performing loan my problem is and rather than you just yell at us so much how does it change the wrist thirty because the company doesn't have the confidence that this is a good risk to assume why because the thing in good health and they can live the term is between the two live people and only becomes a problem when he dies and he could die of anything that's true but if he had observed question whether it was this insurance company willing to assume this risk they sure that what they were told that this was a performing loan and they want to make sure that the that the person has more interest that they're better off if you lose than if he dies because if it's the other way around then they perceive it as being lincoln's very healthy and they didn't tell you as health but this has nothing to do with whether each side paying the premium or anything else it's just from the standpoint of  insurer that's the law it's up to the entrance come to decide whether they want to assume the risk of not and the company any undue rebut affidavit of mr have any duty to do independent investigation insurance company has no duty to do an independent investigation or their underwriting an insurance company that's not the kind of risk we want to assume now and that's per the last law on that subject is very clear it's up to the insurance company to decide where they want to see the risk and you'll have your  crystal clearly page seven no statement nine will be used to deny a claimant a claim a macit is in the application that said they have admitted there is no false statement in the application this church mr churchill dealt with denver security life of done for owned by angie but security life of denver he said nothing to the company that issued the policy that he didn't fandom a thing and the best it's not in the underwriting file they didn't rely upon it happens to be an underwriting file for the policy that was not taken with a different company it's simply not there but even if they did have it in their their own contract which you have to put the contract as a contract it says it must be in the application of the letters not me application it just is that they lose for that we should alone to try to answer some of the questions you're asking my brother counsel they're not curing ching the debt this is a life insurance policy his life they have page after page after page of medical questions they never asked if the debt is performing we didn't lie about anything there's not a single fall statement in the application or testimony binding anybody else testified that there is something more no no one classified as one there's something false in the application even mr voce who had nothing to do with underwrit agreed that it had to be in that that's what the policy yes he does say that doesn't tell you that he doesn't say differently the policy says it and we're the one place and that only the power will see the law says that the statute of state of michigan is also clear not only does he have to be  application but the statute says it also has to be material and whether or not a little is paying interest it's simply not material is so much how insurance policy is that a wealth insurance policy it's a health insurance policy so the l i think we've covered this bubble do this one more time are you aware of any statements made in june thirtieth application that are not accurate no you're not aware of any statements that are not accurate correct right there was crystal application is made that the policy is plain every single case cited anywhere both for the united states supreme court back to the eighteen hundreds so this quit recently to the state of michigan court every case cited in dollars worth of reasons why we want this man to stay alive to pay back his debt and the debt was actually higher much as he wasn't paying if the last clear again the united states supreme court sat even if he's in default they're still in trouble wants but if you look at the police there's not a single case cited which says is no insurable interest if they're into fall into the contrary the case to say if you're in default is in trouble interest that's the first case and says that existed even added to fall on a default that in fact which is a quote from the united states this in my blood and a quote from the united states supreme court upon this we have no doubt the u s supreme court has no doubt that even if you obviously thought he was going to get paid back was not going to loan him more money the business was taken off there's not a single piece of evidence anywhere look anywhere there's no evidence that mr ranney lived he wouldn't have the ability somehow to pay  money and again whether or not he would be paid is not the issue in this case there's an insurer blent trist as the u s supreme court said is this court said and the state of michigan said as long as islamic even if you're in default that person's alive he may have the ability at some point to pay back this man was an attorney who's finding a business today had millions of dollars invested into it he was in his fifty's plenty of time to live plenty of time to grow this do business this was a beginning a business that could have taken off if he was of it if he was alive to do it he wasn't alive but that's why this is in trouble interest and the time i want just the two seconds before my time runs up talk about interest for just two seconds the contract has a ten percent interest provision that accurate is when i have one more sentence or one more question never really turns out to be true but a short period of time to explain about the interest interest is ten percent of the contract the extra two percent is because of the twelve percent statute and the twelve percent statute is clear it does the it's doesn't matter whether it's reason being disputed or not there's a two thousand and seven michigan court of appeals case i cited the says it doesn't matter if it's reasonably in dispute it's sixty days in the sure third party tort claim it were not a third party tort claim  like any other statute like any other defendant you have a time period to pay and interest extra crew if you do if you decide to do something afterwards their contract doesn't contain an exception for the ten percent saying well if we're still investigating died in october two thousand time there is no evidence in this record anywhere in the my client is a suspect that my client was even after a suspect there's not a single piece of paper from the no five police department and where there's nothing in the policy to live anywhere says that my client has to somehow get himself cleared of murder charges it's never been brought against him and he's never even been articulate to be a suspect in order to get paid to get paid you have to do three things you have to show the person died you have to show he's the beneficiary and michelle admitted they were the beneficiary the policy is clear the sole beneficiary is mr ranney and it no impediment it is not legal impediment such as if you want to talk about a number of things in the policy none of which is murder none of which is your suspect none of which is any of these things and says it can't be something caused by that well i started when i started investigating for four years and they found absolutely nothing there's nothing in the str but again the go back to try to stun this up even before my time's up it's doubles back to some very simple basic contract rules rely starting shit insurance policy that insurance policy says in more than one place actually we that it has that any contest of a claim or any denial of a claim must be based upon a statement in the application and there's not a single statement in the application that anyone says is false all you heard him talk about is a letter to a different surance company written a month before the application it's not even an underwriting file he cannot get up and says single thing won the application that contract must be construed against them it must be binding and even if the contract didn't say what it says the law says the exact same thing in the law has one more element block as materiality and as each of you have tried to question brother council it's crystal clear that somebody as well is not a fact of life insurance policy they wanted to know about wealth to be sure that nice quiet mr silent could pay the bills they took the money they took the hundred forty thousand it took to distil seventy thousand dollar payments which by the way the government funded interest only no they took the payments but they have made a policy the law exists for a reason to stop insurance companies from trying to make up excuses to avoid payment the law says it must be in the application policy says it must be in the application it's not in the application there's insurable interest we've submitted everything we have to judge between any went through this case in vivid long detail and issued a very detailed well written opinion yes his court before him if you have no further questions i have a thing for the that  first with respect to the notion that as long as there's nothing in my application that is false i'm home free is not the law in michigan titan insurance company says flat out common law fraud is always a defense that can be raised and in fact we sued not for statutory rescission under the statute cited by brother counsel but under common law fraud theory was tightened supports that notion the fact that it was that the logical extension of that argument is when the insurance company asked for the financial information before the application submitted you can lie to your teeth you can submit phony documents you can do all these things but as long as the app is clean the insurance company can do nothing that is not the on the engine or the insurance company flat said we need to understand the business relationship between back just the notes in a claim that the that he was paying twelve percent interest which would presumably mean ninety thousand dollars a month of cash flow is going through that in your at the application for the future or that are we still back in the way that this letter you're relying on is not in your underwriting file and these representations to another insurance company both of those statements are inaccurate first of all there are the statements were  i n g underwriting department it's in his deposition is his part of the record your underwriting is not a part of the record in this case the portion that he pulled out and said this is the underwriting file is his interpretation of what was relied upon by the company documents which you were last as a part of your file as a part of your business records not as a part of somebody else's business record i want to know how you just said that your client didn't give us the straight story on that and i want to know from messed up which it is so where man they'll look in the record at all i want to know is where act look in the record i don't want anything at position of mr churchill page twenty four he testified he sent that letter to i n g i n g's underwriter's is what he said you say so and that was before any applications were submitted and mr versus affidavit which is part of the record says the company relied on it on the information provided