[brief] This matter involves the appeal of the grant of summary judgment, before completion of discovery, declaring that a legal malpractice policy was properly rescinded by the Defendants [...] and [...] ("Defendants") and further dismissing the Complaint of Plaintiffs, [...], and [...] (collectively “Plaintiffs”), for breach of contract, and related claims, due to Defendants’ improper rescission of and failure to provide coverage under the policies.  The granting of summary judgment, before the deposition of the key underwriter was even conducted, resulted from the trial court erroneously engaging in a weighing and quantitative evaluation of evidence in the record, rather than accepting as true the facts presented by Plaintiffs and providing Plaintiffs with all reasonable inferences therefrom, as required by settled summary judgment jurisprudence.  While paying lip service to the summary judgment standard, the trial court made fact findings by weighing and evaluating, and making credibility judgments, as to evidence presented by Plaintiffs which, at minimum, created triable issues of fact.  Defendants’ wrongful rescission of the Policies followed from a claim made by Plaintiffs for coverage of a legal malpractice claim.  While initially granting coverage under a reservation of rights, Defendants requested information from Plaintiffs concerning a complaint against Plaintiff [...] filed by the OAE years earlier which had resulted in a censure (the “OAE Complaint”).  This prior complaint related to a single bounced check and the alteration of a bank statement so that Plaintiff could hide one of the check recipients from his sister-in-law who worked for the firm auditing the Firm’s accounts.  It is undisputed that the OAE complaint had nothing to do with any client or the rendering of any services to a client.  The ultimate issue to be decided in this case is whether, based upon Defendants’ policy definitions and the language of the applications, Schibell made a “misrepresentation” which was “detrimentally relied upon” to justify rescission of the Policy.  After initially undertaking defense of the claim, Defendants disclaimed coverage and purported to rescind the Policy based on their contention that Plaintiffs made a material misrepresentation in their insurance application.  This claim was premised upon a question in the Policy Application that asks, “has any attorney been the subject of any bar complaint, investigation or disciplinary proceeding within the past 5 years?”  The principle issue on summary judgment revolved around whether, as a matter of law, Plaintiffs were required to report the OAE Proceeding which in no way related to the rendering of legal services and, thus, provided no exposure as to any potential claim or loss.  The record on summary judgment contains substantial evidence that, when viewing the Policy Application based on the required standard of the “reasonable expectation of the insured,” disclosure of the OAE Proceeding is not required.  The record on summary judgment also demonstrated substantial and material factual disputes regarding “detrimental reliance” by the insurer—an essential element of its rescission claim.  In this appeal, Plaintiffs seek reversal of the Court’s Order granting summary judgment to Defendants with respect to their rescission of the Policies and dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims seeking, among other things, to compel coverage.