2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-13-2007 

# W es t v . Lincoln B e nefit

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-3491

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" W e s t v . L inc o ln Be nefit " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 7. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/7T he H onor abl e S y l vi a H

. R ambo, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * J udge f o r th e M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 3491

PATRI CI A W EST, A ppel l ant

v. L I NC OL N B E NE F I T L I F E CO M P ANY

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 05- cv- 00561) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W

. A m brose

A r gued M ay16, 2007 B e f o re : F IS H E R a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d RA M BO , D is tr i ct

Judge

. *2 ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber13, 2007) J ohn W

. J or dan, I V ( A r gued) M at i s , B aum, R i zza & O ’ C onnor 444 L i ber t yA venue Four G at ew ayC ent er , Sui t e 300 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant A l an H

. A bes ( A r gued) D i ns m or e & Shohl 255 E as tFi ft h St r eet 1900 C hemed C ent er C i nci nnat i , O H 45202 R

. St anl eyM i t chel R o se , S c h m id t, H a sle y& D iS a lle 900 O l i verB ui l di ng Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222- 5369 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R A M B O , D is tr i ct

Judge

. T hi s m at t erar i s es out of a di s put e overw hethera pol i cy fo r li fe insu ran ce w as in fo rce u p o n the d ea th o f Jam es W est, Jr. T h e in su re r, A p p e llee L in c o ln B e n e f it L if e C o m p a n y(“ L in c o ln3 B enef i t ”) , ar gues t hatM r . W est’s pol i cyhad l aps ed for no np ay m ent of prem i um s and had no tbeen rei nst at ed. B ecause t he pol i c ywas n o ti n f o r c e a tt h e t i me o f

M r . W e s t ’ s d e a t h, L i ncol n B enef

i t s ubm i t s , i t i s not obl i gat ed t o paybenef i t s under t he pol i cyt er m s . A ppel l an t P at r i ci a W es t , J ames W es t ’ s w i fe and bene fi ci ary o f t he pol i cy , ar gues t hatPenns y l vani a l aw i m pos ed a t empora r ycontr act of i ns ur ance w hen, aft ernot i ce of l aps e, s he s ent an appl i cat i on forr ei ns t at ement and paym entof o v e rd u e p re m iu m s. F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e a g re e w ith L inco ln B en ef

it an d w il l aff

irm su m m aryjud g m en t i n it s fa v o r. I. O n A pr il 4 , 1998, M r . W es tobt ai ned a l i fe i ns ur ance pol i cyfr om A l l s t at e I ns ur ance C om pany . O n t he appl i cat i on for t he pol i cy , he s t at ed t hat he w as t aki ng m edi ci ne forhi gh bl ood pr es s ur e. A ft erm edi cal t es t i ng or exami nat i on byA l l s t at e, t he i nsurance p oli cyw as i ssued. In F ebruary20 02 , M r. W est c o n v e rte d th e A llstate p o lic y t o a $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 ter m p o licyw ith L i ncol n B enef

i t an d ad ded a $50, 000 t er m r i derbenef i t( “the P ol i cy ”)

. A tthe t i m e of c onver s i on, L i ncol n B enef i tdi d not r e q u i r e a m e d i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n o ro t h e rp r o o f o f i n s u r a b i l i t y. M r . W e s tn a m e d M r s . W e s tb e n e f i c i a r y o f t h e P o l i c y. T h e P o licyter m s a re a s fo llo w s: th e in su re d m u st re m it a quart er l ypaym entof $228. 51 t o r emai n i ns ur ed. I f a pr emi um p a ym e n ti s n o tr e c e i v e d b y i t s d u e d a t e , a g r a c e p e r i o d o f s i x t yone day s g o es into e ffe ct

. A tt he end of s i xt y - one day s , i f t he pr emi um i s st i l l out s t andi ng, t he Pol i cyi s t er m i nat ed. A ft er t e r mi n a t i o n b u t b e f

o r e t h e d e a t h o f th e i n s u r e d , h o weve r , t he P o licym a yb e re in sta ted p ro v id e d th a t th e in su re d : 1 ) re q u e sts4 r ei ns t at ement w i t hi n fi ve y ear s of t he dat e thatt he Pol i cy e n ter e d th e g ra c e p e rio d ; 2 ) g iv e s L in c o ln B e n e f it “th e p ro o f

[ it] requi re[s ] that the insur ed i s st i l l i nsurabl e” i n t he p ay m ent cl ass underw hi ch the Pol i cyw as i s s ued; 3) pay s an am ountl ar ge enough t o covert he unpai d m ont hl ydeduct i ons fort he gr ace per i od; 4) m akes a paym ents uffi ci entt o keep the pol i cyi n for ce f o r th re e su b se q u e n t p o licym o n th s; a n d 5 ) p a y s o r a sk s L in c o ln B enef i tt o r ei ns t at e anyout s t andi ng l oan, w i t h i nt er es t

. ( R

. at 6 0 a .) L inco ln B e n ef

itad d resse d all co rresp o n d en ce to M r. W e st a t h is h o m e a d d re ss . M r. W e st w o u ld o p e n th e m a il addr es s ed t o hi m , t hen gi ve M r s . W es t any m ai l t hat r equi r ed a r es pons e, i ncl udi ng bi l l s and not i ces of paym ent due i s s ued by L i ncol n B enef

i t

. M r s . W es tw oul d r es pond orw r i t e a c heck f or pay me n t , a s a p p r o p r i a t e , a n d ma i n t a i n t h e f i l e o f i n s u r a nce do cum ents

. M rs . W estrecal l ed tw o occasi on s w hen M r. W est gave h er a not i ce f

r om L i ncol n B enef

i tt hatt he pr emi um pay m ent w as overdu e an d co verage w ou l d term i nate unl ess p a y m e n t w a s m a d e b ya p a rticu lar d a te. B o th tim e s s h e se n t a c h e c k im m e d iate lyto c o n tin u e th e p o licy in f o rc e . S h e sa w o n ly th e c o rre sp o n d e n c e f

ro m L in c o ln B e n e f

it th a t M r. W e st g a v e to her

. She does notknow i f t her e w er e l et t er s orbi l l s fr om L i ncol n B enef

i ts entt o herhus band t hat he di d not t hen pas s on t o her

. T he W es t s pai d al l pr emi um s due thr ough February17, 2004. O n A p ril 1 , 2 0 0 4 , L in c o ln B e n e f it se n t M r. W e st a r e mi n d e r t h a t h i s n e x t p r e m i u m w a s d u e o n Ma y 1 , 2 0 0 4

. On M a y3 , 2 0 0 4 , b e c a u se it h a d n o t re c e iv e d p a y m e n t, L in c o ln B enef i ts entM r . W es t a l et t er i nfor m i ng hi m t hatt he Pol i cyhadA ccor di ng t o L i ncol n B en ef it ’ s r ecor ds , M r . W es tw as 1 s entel even r emi nderl et t er s s ubs t ant i al l y i dent i cal t o t he one he r ece i ved on M ay3, 2004. H e w as sen t si x s econd not i ces of paym entdue, l i ke the one he r ece i ved on M ay 11, 2004. J anet D ever , a C l ai m C ons ul t ant forA l l s t at e Li fe I ns ur ance C om pany w ith a u th o rityto a c t f

o r L in c o ln B e n e f

it, su b m itt e d a n a f

f id a v it in su p p o rt o f L in c o ln B e n e f it’s m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. She averr ed thatt he corr es pondence des cr i bed i n t hi s opi ni on w a s s e n t to M r. W e st in d u e c o u rse o f b u sin e ss f

o r L in c o ln B enef i t on or ab ou t t he date refl ect ed o n each i t em . M rs . W est t es t i fi ed thats he neve rs aw anyof t hi s corresp ondence ( as i de from t he tw o ti m es she adm i t s t o h aving seen si m i l ar not i ces) an d there fo re d en ies t h at L inco ln B en ef itsen t th ese let ter s . In t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , s h e c l a i ms t h a th e r h u s b a n d n e v e rr e c e i v e d t h e m. M rs. W e st a d m its, h o w e v e r, th a t sh e is w ith o u t k n o w led g e a s to w hetherM r . W es tr ece i ved thes e l et t er s . M r s . W es t ’ s admi t t ed l ack of know l edge i s i ns uffi ci entt o r ebutt he pr es um pt i on t hat c o rr e s p o n d e n c e m a iled in th e o rd in a ryc o u rse o f b u sin e ss is re c e iv e d

. See W

es tv. Li ncoln B en efi tLi f e C o. , N o. 05- 561, 2006 W L 1788384, at *7 ( W

. D

. Pa. J une 26, 2006) ; Fed. R

. C i v. P

. 5 6 (e). 5 ent er ed t he gra ce per i od. H i s Pol i cyw oul d t er m i nat e on J ul y3, 2 0 0 4 i f t h e p r e mi u m wa s n o tr e c e i v e d o n o rb e f o r e t h a td a t e . On M ay11, 2004, L i ncol n B enef i ts entM r . W es ta sec o nd not i ce t hathi s M aypr emi um w as due. 1
M r . W es t di d not s ubm i t paym ent t o L i ncol n B enef i ton o r b e f o re Ju ly3 , 2 0 0 4 . T h u s, o n Ju ly5 , 2 0 0 4 , L in c o ln B e n e f it s enthi m a l et t ers t at i ng t hatt he grace per i od forpr emi um6 pay m ent on his po l i cy had exp i red. T he let t er advi sed M r. W est t hat he coul d appl y for r ei ns t at ement

. T he s econd pa r agr aph of th e lette r sta ted , “[ t]o c o n tin u e y o u r v a lu a b le c o v e rage, com plet e the A p p li ca ti o n fo r R eins tat em en t fo rm o n the b ac k an d return it w ith y o u r p a y m e n t o f $ 2 2 8 .5 1

. U p o n u n d e rw riting a p p ro v a l, and r ece i ptof t he s uffi ci entpay m ent , cover age w i l l cont i nue uni nt errupt ed. ” ( R

. at 183a. ) E ncl os ed w i t h t he l et t er w as an appl i cat i on forr ei n stat ement

. T he appl i cat i on i t s el f s t at es , “I (e a c h u n d e rsig n e d ) re q u e st th a t th e C o m p a n yre in sta te th is p o licy

. . . . C o v e ra g e w ill n o t sta rt a g a in u n til th is re q u e st is a pp roved b yt he co m pan yand al l requi red prem i um s and int eres t ar e pa id. If thi s r eques ti s notappr oved, anyamount t ender ed w i l l be r etur ned. ” (I

d. a t 1 8 7 a .) M r s . W es tr eca l l s havi ng r ead onl yt he f ir sts ent ence of th e se c o n d p a ra g ra p h o f th e lette r, “[ t]o c o n tin u e y o u r v a lu a b le cover age, compl et e t he A ppl i cat i on for R ei ns t at ement for m on t he bac k and r etur n i tw i t h y ourpaym ent o f $228. 51. ” She in ter p re ted it t o m e a n th a t if sh e f ill e d o u t th e f

o rm a n d se n t it t o L i ncol n B enef

i t w i t h paym ent , M r . W es t ’ s i ns ur ance w oul d be r ei ns t at ed. M r s . W es tdi d notr ead, ordoes notr emem ber r eadi n g , anyof t he l anguage i n t he l et t erort he appl i cat i on stat ing that u n d erw ri ti n g a p p ro v al w as re q u ir ed b ef o re r ei ns t at ement w oul d be ef fec t i ve. T he appl i cat i on as ked t en ques t i ons r egar di ng t he appl i cant ’ s m edi cal hi s t or y . M r s . W es t fi l l ed out t he appl i cat i on on M r . W es t ’ s behal f. She ans w ere d ni ne ques t i ons i n t he negat i ve, i ndi cat i ng t hatM r . W es thad no me d i cal i s s ues r el at i ng to those ques t i ons . She ans w er ed “y es ” and “ no” t o one q u esti o n – w h ethe r, in the p ast ten y ea rs or d u ri n g the tim e M r.7 W es twas i n s u r e d u n d e rt h e Po l i c y , h e h a d b e e n “ d i a gnos ed w i t h, s oughtorr ece i ved tr eatm entoradvi ce f or : heartat t ack, d isease o f c o ro n aryarteri es o r oth er b loo d v esse ls, o ther h ea rt di s or der , hi gh bl ood pr es s ur e, di abet es or s t r oke. ” (I d. ) I n t he bl ank pr ovi ded foran expl anat i on of “f ul l det ai l s , i ncl udi ng diagnosi s, severi t y , t reat m ent, nam e and add res s of do ct ors, h o s p ita ls , a n d c lin ic s ,” s h e w ro te “ c o n tr o lle d w ith m e d ic a tio n .” (I d. ) She ans w er ed “y es ” bec aus e M r . W es tsti ll h ad t he hi gh bl ood pr es s ur e di s cl os ed on hi s i ni t i al appl i cati o n forl i fe i ns ur anc e w it h A l l s t at e. She knew M r . W es tt o be i n good healt h b ecaus e he w as t aki ng m edi cat i on t o contr ol hi s bl ood pr es s ur e and he h ad rec ent l ypas s ed a phy s i cal exam w i t h no m e d ica l p ro b lem s. T h u s, sh e b e liev e d th a t L in c o ln B e n e f it w o u ld a p p ro v e th e a p p lica tio n f o r re in s ta tem e n t im m e d iate ly u p o n re c e ip t o f

th e a p p lica tio n a n d p a y m e n t. L i ncol n B ene fitrec eive d the appl i cat i on forr ei ns t at ement o n J u l y1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , a l o n g wi t h M r . We s t ’ s c h e c k f o r $ 2 2 8

. 5 1

. On Ju ly 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , L in c o ln B e n e f it d e p o site d th e c h e c k p u rsu a n t to i t s s t andar d pr act i ce. M r. W e st d ied o n Ju ly2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , an d L in c o ln B e n e f it r ece i ved not i ce of hi s death t w o day s l at er . T he U nderw r i t i ng D epart m enthad not compl et ed i t s r evi ew of t he appl i cat i on and h a d n o tm a d e a d e c i s i o n o n w h e t h e rt o r e i n s t a t e h i s P o l i c y. B e c a u se L in c o ln B e n e f it d id n o t c o n sid e r M r. W e st’s P o licyto be i n eff

ect a t the t i m e of hi s death, on J ul y30, 2004, t he company deni ed M r s . W es t ’ s cl ai m forpaym entof bene fi t s and r efunde d t he pr emi um paym entof $228. 51 t hathad a c c o m p a n ied th e a p p lica tio n f o r re in sta tem e n t.8 II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad subj ect m at t er j ur i s di ct i on t o hear t hi s cl ai m pur s uantt o 28 U

. S

. C

. § 1332( a) ( 1)

. W e have juri sd ict ion to rev iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d ec isi o n o n su m m ary j udgm entunder2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1291. W e r evi ew t he dec i s i on de novo . St at e Farm Mut

. A ut o. I n s. C o . v. R os enthal , 484 F. 3d 2 5 1 , 2 5 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). B e c a u se su b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n is b a se d o n d iv e rsity o f c iti z e n sh ip , w e lo o k to th e su b sta n tiv e law o f P e n n sy lv a n ia to d e te rm in e th e ri g h ts a n d o b lig a tio n s o f th e p a rt ie s . E r i e R. R

. C o. v. Tom pki ns , 304 U

. S. 64, 77 ( 1938). T he l aw of t he C om m onw eal t h i s decl ar ed by “i t s L egi s l atur e i n a s t atut e orby i t s hi ghes tcour t

. ” I

d. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our ti s t he b est au tho ri tyo n P ennsy lvan ia l aw , b u t w h en the S u p rem e C o u rt h a s n o ti s s u e d a c l e a rp r o n o u n c e me n ti n a p a r t i c u l a ra r e a , we “m ustcon si der r el evan tst at e preceden t s, analogo us decis i on s, cons i der ed di ct a, sch o l ar l yw or ks , and anyot herr el i abl e dat a” to d e te rm in e w h a t th e la w is

. McKenna v. O r tho P har m . C or p. , 6 2 2 F .2 d 6 5 7 , 6 6 1 , 6 6 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 0 ); s ee al s o C o m m ’r v. Es t at e of B os ch , 387 U

. S. 456, 465 ( 1967)

. W e maynotr es ton “bl i nd adher ence t o s t at e pr ece dent s w i t houteval uat i ng t he deci s i ons i n l i ghtof ot herr el evant dat a as t o w hat t he s t at e l aw i s . ” McKenna , 622 F. 2d at663 (qu o ta t i on and al t er at i on o m itt e d ); accor d Scot t

s A f r i can U ni on Methodis tP r ot es t ant C hu rch v. C on

f erence o f A f ri can U nion F i rst

C olored Metho dis t P r ot es t antC hur ch , 9 8 F

. 3 d 7 8 , 9 2 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ); cf

. B er nhar dt v. P ol ygr aphi c C o. of

A m . , I nc. , 350 U

. S. 198 , 204 ( 1956) (a f f irm in g d istric t co u rt’s u se o f f o rty -f iv e -y e a r-o ld sta te s upr eme cour tpr eced en t w hen “ther e appe ar [ed] t o be no9 confus i on i n [s t at e] deci s i ons , no devel opi ng l i ne of a ut hor i t i es th a t ca sts a sh a d o w o v e r th e e sta b lish e d o n e s, n o d ic ta , d o u b ts orambi gui t i es i n t he opi ni ons of [s t at e] j udges on t he ques t i on, [and] no l egi s l at i ve devel opm ent t hat pr om i s es t o under m i ne the jud ici al rule” ). O p inion s fro m inf erior P en n sy lvan ia co u rt s are notcontr ol l i ng i n ouranal y s i s , butt heyar e ent i t l ed t o s i gni fi cant w e ig h t w h e n th e re is n o in d ica tio n th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt w o u ld ru le o th e rw is e . R o s enthal , 484 F. 3d at 253. III

. T he fa ct s o f thi s cas e i m pl i cat e a s peci fi c ar ea of i ns ur ance l aw – r ei ns t at ement of a l aps ed pol i cyof l i fe i ns ur ance – and gene r al pr i nci pl es of i ns ur ance l aw as decl ar ed b yth e P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts. W e w ill a d d re ss e a c h p a ra d ig m in tur n. A

. T he Law of R ei ns t at ement Penns y l vani a’ s Ins ur ance D epart m entA ctof 1921 w as e n a c te d t o p ro te c t th e in s u ra n c e -b u y in g p u b lic

. C ol l is t erv. N at i onw i de Li

f e I ns . C o. , 388 A

. 2d 1346, 1355 ( Pa. 1978)

. O ne o f its re q u ire m e n ts is th a t all life in su ra n c e p o licie s d e liv e re d in Penns y l vani a cont ai n t he cons um er - pr ot ect i ve pr ovi s i ons of 40 Pa. C ons . St at

. A nn . § 5 10, ort er m s m or e fa vor abl e t o t he insu red

. S e e g e n e ra lly L ee R. R us s & T hom as F. Segal l a, C o u ch o n Insu ran ce § 3 3

. 4 8 (3d ed

. 1 9 9 5 ) (“[W ]he re statutory r equi r ement s ar e enact ed, t hey aut om at i cal l y become par tof any insu ran ce p o li cyissue d there af ter, n o tw ith stan d ing m o re lim iti n g lan g u a g e in th e p o licy .”). T h e sta tu te r e q u ire s th a t all10 pr emi um s m aybe pai d i n ad v an ce, § 510( a) , and i f a pr emi um i s notr ece i ved w hen due, t he i ns ur ed i s ent i t l ed t o a gr ace per i od i n w hi ch t o pay , § 510( b)

. I f an i ns ur ed does notpayw i t hi n t he g ra c e p e rio d a n d th e p o licylap se s, § 5 1 0 (k ) g o v e rn s th e rig h ts and obl i gat i ons of t he i ns ur ed af t erl aps e of a pol i cy , s houl d t he in su re d w ish to a p p lyf

o r re in sta tem e n t: [T]he h o l d e ro f

a p o l i c ys h a l l b e e n t i t l e d t o h a ve t he pol i cyr ei ns t at ed , upon w r i t t en appl i cat i on t her efor , [1] atanyt i m e w i t hi n t h ree y ear s fr om t he d at e of d efau l ti n p rem i um pay m ents , un l ess t he p o l i c y h a s b e e n d u l y s u r r e n d e r e d o rt he ext ens i on per i od expi r ed, [2] upon t he pr oduct i on of evi dence of i ns ur abi l i t ys at i s fac t or yt o t he com p an y , . . . [3] paym entof al l over due p re m iu m s w ith in ter e st a t a ra te to b e sp e c if ied in the p o li cy. . . and [4] t he paym entof anyot her i ndebt edness t o t he companyupon s ai d pol i cy w ith in te re s t . . . . § 5 1 0 (k). T he conj unct i ve phr as i ng of § 510( k) m akes i tcl eart hat eac h r equi r ement m us tbe s at i s fi ed – mer e paym entof over due p re m iu m s is n o t s u f

f ic ie n t to e f

f e c t r e in s ta te m e n t. F is h e rv . A m. N at ’ lI ns . C o. , 2 4 1 F .2 d 1 7 5 , 1 7 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 5 7 ); Syke s v. U ni t ed I ns . C o. , 7 6 A .2 d 2 2 7 , 2 2 9 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 19 5 0 ); Sel by v. E qui t ab l e Benef

i ci alMut

. Li

f e I ns . C o. , 17 A

. 2d 696, 697 ( Pa. S u p e r. C t. 19 4 1 ); P e t e rs v . Co l o n i a lL i f e I n s . Co

. o f A m. , 1 9 3 A. 4 6 0 , 4 6 3 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 19 3 7 ); St agerv. Fed. Li f e Ins

. C o. , 189 A . 7 7 6 , 7 7 8 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 19 3 7 ); F is hm an v. E ur eka-M d.11 A s s ur ance Corp. , 1 8 3 A

. 9 8 , 1 0 2 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1 9 3 6 ); F ra n k lin L

. B est, Jr. , P en n sy lvan ia Insu ran ce L aw § 1 3

. 7 (3d ed

. 2 0 0 5 ); s ee R u s s & S e g a lla , supra , § 3 3

. 4 6 (“W h ere tw o o r m o re condi t i ons t o r ei ns t at ement exi s t , i t i s nece s s aryt hatt he i ns ur ed s at i s fyal l of t he condi t i ons i n or der to o bt ai n r ei ns t at ement

. . . . ”)

. T he i ns ur ed hol ds t he bur den of p rov ing compl i ance w ith a ll c o n d itio n s p re c e d e n t to re in s ta te m e n t. R i ebel v. P r u d e n t i a lI

n s . Co

. o f A m. , 1 7 9 A . 4 4 7 , 4 4 8 (P a . 1 9 3 5 ); Syke s , 7 6 A .2 d a t 2 2 9 ; Sel by , 1 7 A .2 d a t 6 9 7 -9 8 ; P et ers , 193 A

. at464; St ager , 1 8 9 A . at 7 7 9 ; F is hm an , 1 8 3 A. a t 1 0 1

. Be c a u s e our analy si s turns on t he second requi rem ent, t hat the insur ed m ust p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e o f

i n s u r a b i l i tys a t i s f

a c t o r yt o t h e i n s u r e r , we w i l l e v a l u a t e t h e l a w o n t h a ti s s u e o n l y. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tw as pr es ent ed w i t h an o p p o rtu n ityto in ter p re t th e m e a n in g o f “ e v id e n c e o f

in su ra b ili ty s at i s fac t or yt o the i ns ur er ” i n R i ebel

. A m an appl i ed forl i fe i ns ur ance a n d r e c e i v e d a p o l i c y . 1 7 9 A. a t4 4 7

. Th e p o l i cy la p s e d f o r n o n -p a y m e n t o f

p r e m iu m s . I

d. T he r ei ns t at ement pr ovi s i on i n R i ebel

w as phr as ed i n exac tacc or dance w i t h the s t atut or yt extof § 510( k) t hatw as t hen i n eff ect , s uch t h at t he l apsed i ns ur e d was r e qu i r e d t o p a ypa s ta r r e a r s a nd fu r ni sh e v id e n c e o f

in s u ra b ility s a tis f

a c to ry to th e in s u re r. I

d. at447- 48. T he l aps ed i ns ur ed s ubm i t t ed hi s appl i cat i on forr ei n sta t ement an d p ay m en t o f pa st- d u e pre m iu m s . I d. H e al s o s ubm i t t ed a p h y sic ian ’s r e p o rt o f h is he a lth in d ica tin g th a t h e h a d lo st tw e n ty pounds , l ooked ane m i c, had contr act ed the fl u dur i ng t he p re v io u s y e a r a n d h a d n o t f e lt w e ll s in c e . I

d. at448. T he next d ay , h e d ied

. I

d. Four day s l at er , and w i t houtnot i ce of t he l aps ed i ns ur ed’ s death, t he appl i cat i on for r ei ns t at em en t w as deni ed bec aus e t h e evi dence pr es ent ed di d nots at i s fyt heA n ear l i ercas e hel d t hateven w h en an i ns ur ance 2 c o m p a n y appr oved

an appli ca ti on forr ei ns t at ement aft ert he a p p lica n t h a d d ied , the c o m p a n yw a s n o t li a b le f o r d e a th b e n e f its

. Meer bach v. Metr o. Li f e I ns . C o. , 46 Pa. Super

. 133, 1 9 1 1 W L 4 4 6 0 , at *1 (P a. S u p er. C t. D ec . 1 9 , 1 9 1 0 ). T h e c o u rt hel d t hatt he pos t hum ous appr oval “w oul d oper at e t o r evi ve the pol i cyon a l i fe w hi ch had then ce as ed t o ex ist

. N o s uch thi ng coul d h av e been cont empl at ed byei t hert he companyort he i ns ur ed. ” I

d. 12 c o m p a n y th a t h e w a s s till in s u ra b le

. I d. T he arr ear age pa y m ent w a s te n d e re d b a c k to th e e s ta te o f th e la p s e d in s u re d

. I

d. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C o u rt hel d t hatt he i ns ur er w as cl ear l yw i t hi n i t s r i g h ts to denyr ei ns t at ement undert he s t atut or ypr edec es s ort o § 510( k) , t he i ns ur ance pol i cy , and the appl i cat i on for r ei ns t at ement , w hen no s at i s fac t or yevi dence of the i ns ur abi l i t yof t he l aps ed i ns ur ed w as pr ovi ded. I d. ; s ee 2 B e s t, s up ra , § 1 3 .7 ; R u s s & S e g a lla , supra , § 33: 61 ( “[R]e i ns t at ement m ay be deni ed i f t he i ns ur ed i s uni ns ur abl e at t he t i m e he or s he s eeks r ei ns t at ement

. . . . ”)

. “[E] ven i f t he c o u rt c o u ld o v e rlo o k th e c o n tra c tu a l an d sta tu to ryre q u ire m e n t, t hat‘ the ev idence of t he i ns ur abi l i t yof t he i ns ur ed [mustbe] s at i s fac t or y to the C om pany , ’

. . . pl ai nt i ff ha s fur ni s hed no evidence w hich w ou l d just i fyei ther t he co urto r ju ry i n so det er m i ni ng on [t hi s ] uns at i s fac t or ypr oof .

. . . ” R i ebel , 1 7 9 A. at448. A ccor di ngl y , t he Supr eme C our taff i r m ed entr yof jud g m en t f

o r th e insu ran ce co m p an y an d ag ains t th e b en ef ici ary o f th e la p s e d in s u ra n c e p o lic y . I d.13 A s d e m o n s t r a t e d b y R i ebel , ev id e n c e o f in su ra b ili ty s at i s fac t or y t o t he companym us t , i n fac t , be s at i s fac t or yt o t he c o m p a n y. I f

t h i s e v i d e n c e i s n o t p r o v i d e d , o ri s n o ts a t i s f a c t o r y, th e in s u re r n e e d n o t r e in s ta te

. I d. ; St ager , 18 9 A

. at77 8; R uss & S e g a lla , supra , § 33: 61. T he i ns ur er “ca nnot be arbi t r aryor capr i ci ous i n cons i der i ng t he evi dence of i ns ur abi l i t y ” pr ovi ded in a n a p p lic a tio n f

o r r e in s ta te m e n t. R othschi ld v. N

. Y

. L i f e Ins. C o. , 1 6 2 A

. 4 6 3 , 4 6 6 ( P a . S u p e r . C t

. 1 9 3 2 )

. U l t i m a t e l y, how ever , t he i ns ur er has t he ri ght t o m ake the fi nal deci s i on as t o w hetheri tw il l acc eptordenyan appl i cat i on for re in s ta te m e n t. F is hm an , 1 8 3 A . at 1 0 2 ; s ee § 510( k) ( evi dence o f in su rab il itym u st be sati sfa ctoryto the insu red ). T h e m etho d o f p roo f o f in su rab il itym ayv a ry. In su rers o f t e n r e l y i n i t i a l l y o n f

o r m s t o p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e o f i n s u r a b i l i t y. T h e se f o rm s re q u ire th e in su re d o r a n e x a m in in g p h y sic ian to a n s w e r q u e s tio n s a b o u t th e in s u re d ’s h e a lth

. See Stager , 1 8 9 A. at 77 8

. Inc o m p let e o r no n -re s p o n sive an sw ers to the insu rer’s q u e s t i o n s d o n o tp r o v i d e s a t i s f a c t o r y e v i d e n c e o f

i n s u r a b i l i t y. I d. at778- 79. I n St ager , s uch a for m w as us ed i n an appl i cat i on forr ei ns t at ement

. T he appl i cat i on as ked, “H ave y ou now any di s eas es o r d is or der s ? If any , gi ve det ai l s . ” I

d. at778. T he l aps ed i ns ured responde d “B l adder

. ” I d. T he i ns ur err epl i ed w i t h t he fol l ow i ng: “I f t hatques t i on i s ans w er ed corr ect l yand [t he i ns ur ed] now has a bl adder d isord er he w oul d notbe in su ra b le. W e a re re tu rn in g th e a p p lica tio n f o r h im to m o d if

yif t hatques t i on i s i ncorr ect l yansw ere d. ” I d. T h is an sw er, u n c h a n g e d , im p o se d n o o b lig a tio n u p o n th e in su re r to re in sta te beca us e i tw as not r es pons i ve t o t he ques t i on as ked and di d not pr ovi de s at i s fac toryevi dence t hatt he l aps ed i ns ur ed r emai ned in s u ra b le

. I

d. at779.14 B

. Subse quentD evel opm ent s i n I ns ur ance L aw I n t he l at e 1970s, t he P enns y l vani a S upr eme C our ti s s ued d e c isio n s th a t d e m o n stra ted its c o n su m e r-o rie n ted a p p ro a c h to i ns ur ance l aw byal l ow i ng t he expe ct at i ons of t he i ns ur ed r ather t han t he p l ai n term s of a p oli cyt o co ntr ol i nsurance d isp u tes. N one of thes e dec i s i ons i nvol ved r ei ns t at ement of a l aps ed pol i cy ; none purpor tt o i nt erpr etorm odi fy the l aw governi ng r ei ns t at ement des cr i bed supra . I n R em pel v. N at i onw ide L if

e I ns ur ance Co. , I

nc. , 370 A

. 2d 366 ( Pa. 197 7 ) ( p l u r a l i ty ) , t he pl ai nt i ff- benef i ci arycl ai m ed n e g lig e n t m is re p re s e n ta tio n b ya n in s u re r’ s a g e n t. I d. at367. T he age nti nfo rm ed the i ns ur ed thatupon hi s death, hi s pol i cy w oul d pay t he re m ai nder of hi s m or t gage bal ance pl us $5, 000. I d. Th e t e r ms o f

t h e p o l i c yd i d n o t , i n f a c t , c o n t a i n s uch p ro v is io n s . I

d. T h e R em p els d id n o t r ea d the p o li cyto co n firm th e a g e n t’s a ss e rtio n s, b u t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d id n o t im p o s e a d u t y u p o n th e m to d o s o . I d. at368. I ns t ead,

“ [ c ]o n s u m e rs , s u c h a s th e R e m p e ls , v ie w a n in s u ra n c e a g e n t . . . a s o n e p o ss e ss in g e x p e r tis e in a c o m p lica ted su b jec t. Itis t her efor e notunr eas o n ab l e forcons um er s t o r el yon the r epr es en t at i ons of t he expe r tr athert han on the cont ent s of t he i ns ur ance pol i cyi t s el f. ” I d. Put anotherw ay , cons um er s r el yon an age nt t o “tr ans l at e” the s peci al i zed l anguage of an i ns ur ance p o lic yin to w o rd s th a t th e yu n d e r s t a n d

. I d. ; accor d C ol l is t er , 388 A

. 2d at1353 ( “[T] he i ns ur ance i ndus t r yfor ces t he i ns ur ance cons um ert o r el yupon t he or al r epr es ent at i ons of t he i ns ur ance agent

. Such r epr es ent at i ons m ayor m aynot acc ur at el yr efl ectthe cont ent s of the w r i t t en documentand t her efor e the i ns ur eri s oft en i n a pos i t i on t o r eap t he bene fi tof15 t he i ns ur ed’ s l ack of

under s t andi ng . . . . ”)

. B eca us e ther e w as
“ n o e v id e n c e . . . ind ica tin g th a t th e R e m p e ls k n e w , o r sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n , th a t th e p o licy w h ich th e y re c e iv e d d id n o t co n tain th e p ro v isio n s w h ich [ th e a g e n t] led th e m to b e liev e w o u ld b e in t he pol i cy , ” the R empel s w er e ent i t l ed t o t he addi t i onal $5, 000 that th e y re a s o n ab lyex p ec ted a s a re su lto f th e a g en t’ s m is re p re s e n ta tio n . R em pel , 370 A

. 2d at369. A y earl at er , i n C ol l is t er , t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C our tcons i der ed t he quest i on of w hether a t empora r ycontr act of i ns ur ance arose w hen a pr opos ed i ns ur ed s ubm i t t ed a ne w app l i cat i on for i nsurance and contem po raneou sl ypaid hi s fi rs t pr emi um . 388 A

. 2d at13 4 7

- 48. T he i ns ur ance agentw ho r ece i ved the appl i cat i on and paym enti nfor m ed the propos ed in s u re d th a t a m e d i c a l e x a m in a tio n w a s re q u ir e d

. I d. at1355. T he age ntal s o pr ovi ded the pr opos ed i ns ur ed a “ condi t i onal r e c e i p t ” w h i c h s t a t e d “ N O I N S U R A N C E W I L L B E C O ME E F F E CT I VE P RI OR T O P OL I CY DE L I VE RY UNL E S S T HE A C T S R E Q U IR E D B Y T H IS R E C E IP T A R E C O M P L E T E D .” I d. at 1356. O ne of the ac t s r equi r ed w as a medi cal exami nat i on d e m o n s tr a tin g th e a p p lic a n t’ s in s u ra b ility. I d. T he appl i cant d ie d b e f o r e s u b m ittin g th e re s u lts o f a m e d ic a l e x a m . I

d. at 1347. T he i ns ur erhad notacc ept ed or r ej ect ed hi s appl i cat i on f o r a n e w p o lic y . I

d. T h e b en ef

ici ary claim ed that a tem p o rary contr act f

o ri ns ur ance had ar i s en att he mom entof pr emi um p a y m e n t. I

d. at1348. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tagr eed. I d. at1355. T he C our thel d t hat“the pr operr es oluti o n of ques t i ons s uch as t hatpr es ent ed byt he i ns t an t ap p eal depends upon an16 anal y s i s of t he t ot al i t yof t he t r ans act i on i nvol ved. ” I d. at1353. I tfur t herhel d t hat [i ] n s i tuat i ons w her e the ci r cumst an ce s of t he t r ans act i on do noti ndi cat e thatt he i ns ur er i nt e n d e d t o p r o v i d e i n t e r i m i n s u r a n c e , b ut never t hel es s s how t hatt he i ns ur eracc ept ed pay m en t of

t he fi r s tpr emi um att he t i m e i tt ook th e a p p lica tio n , itis th e n u p to th e in su re r to es t abl ish bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hat t he cons um erhad no r eas onabl e bas i s for bel i evi ng t hathe ors he w as pur chas i ng i m m edi at e i ns ur ance cover age. I d. U l t i m at el y , cour t s w er e di r ect ed t o “exa m i ne the dynami cs o f th e in su ra n c e tra n sa c tio n to a sc e rta in w h a t a re th e re a so n a b le exp ect at i on s of t he co nsum er” and g i ve ef fect t o those expec t at i ons , r egard le s s of t he ambi gui t yorcl ar i t yof t he la n g u a g e o f

a n in s u ra n c e c o n tr a c t. I d. at1353- 54. F o l l ow i ng R em

pel and C ol l is ter , ho w ever, i nsurance case l aw appea r ed t o di ver ge under t w o s ubs equentdeci s i ons byt he P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt: St andar d V enet i an B l i nd C o. v. A m er i can Em

pi r e I ns ur ance Co. , 469 A

. 2d 563 ( Pa. 1983) , and Tonkovi c v. St at e Far m Mut ual A ut om obi l e Ins ur ance Co. , 521 A .2 d 9 2 0 (P a . 1 9 8 7 ). St andar d V enet i an B l i nd

adher ed t o t he lang u ag e o f the in su ran ce co n tr ac t t o d eterm ine a n insu rer’s obl i gat i on t o pay , w it h o u t r egar d t o t he expe ct at i ons of t he i ns ur ed. I tdi d notci t e C ol l is t er . In s te a d , th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt sta ted th a t th e in ten t o f th e p a rties is17 m an i fes t ed byt he l anguage of t he w r i t t en in stru m e n t. W h e re a p ro v isio n o f a p o licyis ambi guous , t he pol i cypr ovi s i on i s t o be cons t rued i n favor of t he i ns ur ed and aga i ns tt he i ns ur er , t he dr aft erof t he agr eement

. W her e, how ever , t he l an g u ag e o f the co nt r acti s cl earand u n a m b ig u o u s, a c o u rt is req u ire d to g iv e e f f e c t to t hatl anguage . I n t he ab sen ce of pr oof of f

r aud, fai l ure t o read the co ntr acti s an un avail i ng excu se or d e f e n s e a n d c a n n o tj u s t i f ya n a v o i d a n c e, m odi fi cat i on or nul l i fi cat i on of t he contr actorany pr ovi s i on t her eof. St andar d V

enet i an B l i nd , 46 9 A

. 2d at 56 6 (quo t at i on , ci t at i on s, a n d a lte ra tio n s o m itte d ). St andar d V enet i an B l i nd

did adm on i sh t hat“i n l i ghtof t he mani fes t i nequal i t yof bar gai ni ng pow er b e tw e e n a n in s u ra n c e c o m p a n y a n d a p u rc h a s e r o f in s u ra n c e , a c o u rt m a yo n o c c a sio n b e ju st if ie d in d e v iatin g f

ro m th e p lain l anguage of a c ont r actof i ns ur ance . ” I d. at567. T he fa ct s of t hatca s e, how ever , di d notper m i ts uch d e v iatio n b e c a u se th e p o licylim itatio n a t issu e w a s c lea rly w o rd e d a n d c o n s p ic u o u s ly d is p la y e d

. I d. T he i ns ur ed, upon app li cat i on fort he pol i cy , r eques t ed “f ul l cover age on every t hi ng w e have

. ” I

d. at 56 5

. T h e p o li cyco n tai n ed stan d ard excl us i on pr ovi s i ons , w hi ch w er e cl ear , unambi guous , and not c o n tr a ry to la w . I

d. at566. T he i ns ur erdi d notdes cr i be the l i m i t at i ons of t he pol i cy , butnei t herdi d i t m i s r epr es entt hatt he pol i cyhad no exc l us i ons orthatt he exc l us i ons w er e anyt hi ng o ther th an w h at they p u rpo rt ed to b e . S ee i d. T o al l ow t he i ns ur ed “t o avoi d appl i cat i on of t he cl earand unambi guous18 pol i cyl i m i t at i ons i n t hes e ci r cumst ance s w oul d [have r equi r ed th e S u p re m e C o u rt ] t o re w ri te th e p a rt ie s ’ w ri tte n c o n tr a c t,” w h ic h th e c o u rt w o u ld n o t d o . I d. Instea d , it so u g h t to “a cc o rd pr opers i gni fi canc e t o t h e w r i t t en contr act , w hi ch has hi s t or i cal l y been the true t es tof par t i es ’ i nt ent i ons . ” I d. at567. B yc o n tr a s t, T

o n ko v ic f

o c u se d o n th e re a so n a b le expec t at i ons of t he i ns ur ed ra t her t han t he cl ear l anguage of t he cont es t ed pol i cy beca us e t he i ns ur ed s peci fi call yr eques t ed di s abi l i t yi ns ur ance , but w as i s s ued a pol i cyt hatdi d noti ncl ude d is a b ility in s u ra n c e . 5 2 1 A .2 d a t 9 2 4

. T o n ko v ic h eld th at w h ere “an i ndi vi dual appl i es and pr epay s fo r spec i fi c i ns ur ance cover age, t he i ns ur er m ay not uni l at er al l y change t he cove r age pr ovi ded w i t houtan af fi r m at i ve s how i ng t hatt he i ns ur ed w as not i fi ed of, and under s t ood, t he cha nge, r egar dl es s of w hether t he i ns ur ed read the p o l i cy . ” I d. at925. T her e i s “a c ruci al di s t i nct i on betw een c as es w her e one appl i es fora s peci fi c type of cove r age a nd t he i ns ur eru n il ater al l yl i m i t s t hatcover age, r es ul t i ng i n a pol i cyqui t e d iffer entfr om w hatt he i ns ur ed r eques t ed, ” as t he fa ct s of T o n ko v ic demonst r at ed, and “c as es w her e the i ns ur ed r ece i ved pr eci s el yt he cove r ag e that he r eques ted b u t fai l ed t o r ead the pol i cyt o di s covercl aus es t hat ar e the us ual i nci dentof t he cove r age a ppl i ed for , ” as occurr ed i n St andar d V

enet i an B l i nd

. I

d. ; acco rd T

oy v. M et ro. L i f e Ins. C o. , 8 6 3 A. 2 d 1 , 1 3 ( Pa

. Su p e r . Ct

. 2 0 0 4 ) ( a f f i r mi n g t hat an i ns ur erhas a dutyt o i nfor m an i n su red t hati ti s s ued a pol i cy d iffe ren t from w h at t h e ins u red req u ested ). T he ca s es t hatfol l ow r efl ectt he T o n ko v ic d ist inction

. In t he abs ence of an a ffi r m at i ve m i s r epr es ent at i on by t he i ns ur eror i t s agentabout t he cont ent s of t he pol i cy , t he pl ai n and19 un am b iguous t er m s of a pol i cydemonst r at e the part i es ’ i nt ent and they contr ol t he r i ght s and obl i gat i ons of t he i ns ur erand the in s u re d

. E

. g. , Kvaer nerMetal s D iv

. of Kvaer nerU

. S. , I

nc. v. C om m er ci alU

ni on I ns . C o. , 9 0 8 A

. 2 d 8 8 8 , 8 9 7 (P a. 20 0 6 ); Madis o n C o n s tr . C o. v. H ar l eys vi l l e Mut

. I

ns . C o. , 735 A

. 2d 100, 106 ( Pa. 1999) ( “The pol es t arof ourinq u ir y . . . i s t he lan g u a g e o f

th e in su ra n c e p o lic y.” ) ; G ene & H arvey B uilders, I nc. v. P a. M

f rs . ’A s s ’ n I

ns . C o. , 5 1 7 A

. 2 d 9 1 0 , 9 1 3 (P a. 19 8 6 ). W h e n a p ro v isio n o f

th e p o licyis c lea r a n d u n a m b ig u o u s, it m u s t b e e n f

o rc e d

. Madis on C ons tr . C o. , 7 3 5 A. 2 d a t1 0 6

. An uncl ear , ambig u ous pr ovi s i on w i l l be cons t rued aga i ns tt he in s u re r a n d in f

a v o r o f th e in s u re d

. I

d. A n anal y s i s of t he re as onabl e expect at i ons of t he i ns ur ed i s r i ght l yempl oy ed w hen a c l ai m ant all eges t hatt he i ns ur er e n g a g e d in d e c e p tiv e p ra c tice s to w a rd th e in s u r e d , eith e r to m i s r epr es entt he t er m s of the pol i cyort o i s s ue a pol i cydi ffe r ent t han the one r eques t ed byt he i ns ur ed and pr om i s ed byt he in s u re r. Mat con D i am ond, I nc. v. P enn N

at ’ lI ns . C o. , 815 A

. 2d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 4 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 20 0 3 ); P r es s l ey v. Trav el ers P r op. C as . C or p. , 8 1 7 A .2 d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 4 0 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 2 0 0 3 ). I n th is cont ext , t he cl ear and unambi guous l anguage i n t he pol i cyi s one as pectof t he t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s t hatm ayl ead t o t he re a s o n a b le e x p e c ta tio n s o f th e in s u re d

. B ubis v. Prudent i al P r op. & Cas. I

ns . C o. , 7 1 8 A .2 d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 2 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1 9 9 8 ); Fr ai n v. Keys t one I ns . C o. , 640 A

. 2 d 1 352, 1354 ( Pa. S u p e r. C t. 19 9 4 ); s ee Rel i ance I ns . C o . v. Moes s ner , 121 F. 3d 8 9 5 , 9 0 3 n . 7 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ); P r es s l ey , 8 1 7 A

. 2 d a t1 1 4 3 ( L a l l yG re e n , J., c o n c u rrin g a n d d iss e n tin g ); but s ee D i bbl e v. Sec. of A m . Li f e In s . C o. , 590 A

. 2d 352, 355 ( Pa. Super

. C t

. 1991) (e v a lu a tin g “ th e d yn a m ic s o f th e tra n sa c tio n v iew e d in its20 en ti rety ” w ith o u t r eg ard to th e l an g u ag e of an ap p li ca ti o n fo r a n e w p o li c yo r th e p o licyitse lf ); B i er erv. N

at i onw i de I

ns . C o. , 461 A

. 2d 216, 221 ( Pa. Super

. C t

. 1983) ( “The fa ct t hatt he pol i cyr i derand appl i cat i on ar e unam bi guous i n t hei rpr ovi s i ons does not , byi t s el f, defe att he r eas onab le e xpect at i ons of t he cons um er . ”)

. “[A ] n i nsu red m aynotcompl ai n t hathi s orher r eas onabl e expe ct at i ons w er e frus t r at ed bypol i cyl i m i t at i ons w hi ch ar e cl earand unambi guous . ” Fr a in , 640 A

. 2d at1354. H ow ever , “eve n the most cl ear l y w r i t t en excl us i on w i l l notbi nd t h e i n s u r e d whe r e t h e i n s u r e r o r i t s a g e n t h a s c r e a t e d i n t he ins ur ed a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of cove r age. ” R el i an ce Ins. C o. , 121 F. 3d at903. “[M ] er e as s er t i ons t hata part yexpec t ed cover age w i l l notor di nar i l ydefe atunambi guous pol i cy l anguage excl udi ng coverag e. ” M at con D i am ond, I

nc. , 815 A

. 2d at1115. W e beli eve thatt his synthesi zed st and ard is the t ruest sta tem e n t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia la w . W e h a v e a p p lied it i n th e p a st, Tran v

. Metr o. Li

f e I ns . C o. , 4 0 8 F

. 3 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 6 -37 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ); R el i ance I

ns . C o. , 12 1 F. 3d at9 0 3 ; B ens al em Tw p. v. I nt ’ l Sur pl us Li nes I

ns . C o. , 3 8 F

. 3 d 1 3 0 3 , 1 3 0 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ); see A lt im ar i v. John H ancock V ar i abl e Li

f e I ns . C o. , 2 4 7 F. S u p p . 2 d 6 3 7 , 6 4 4 -4 5 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 3 ); B arrar v. Met ro. L i f e Ins. C o. , 1 5 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 6 1 7 , 6 2 1 -2 2 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 1 ), a n d w e w ill appl yi ther e. I V. T he part i es have as ked us t o det er m i ne w hi ch s our ce of l aw det er m i nes t hei rr i ght s and obl i gat i o n s t o one another : t he law g o v e rn in g re in sta tem e n t o r th e law g o v erni ng the reaso n a b le21 expec t at i ons of t he i nsu red. C ons i der i ng t he evol ut i on of t he c a s e l a w un d e r t h e “ r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n s ” s t a n d a r d , we bel i eve thatthe o u tcom e of thi s m at t eri s t he s ame no m at t er w h i c h l a w we c h o o s e . Li n c o l n Be n e f i t i s n o t o b l i g e d t o pay b e n e f i t s o n M r . W e s t ’ s l a p s e d P o l i c y. A

. U ndert he Law of R ei ns t at ement W e b e liev e th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt w o u ld d e c ide this m at t er un der 40 P a. C on s. S t at

. A nn . § 510 (k) , its i n t e rp r e t i v e p r e c e d e n t, a n d t h e r e i n s t a t e m e n tt e r m s o f t h e P o l i c y. T he bur den of pr ovi ng compl i ance w i t h al l condi t i ons pr ece dent to re in s t a t e m e n t o f

th e P o lic yis th u s o n M rs . W e s t. See , e. g. , Syke s , 76 A

. 2d at 229. She cannotm eett hi s bur den. B ot h t he case l aw and the Pol i cyar e cl ear : paym entof the over due pr emi um w as i ns uffi ci entt o eff ect rei ns t at ement

. I tw as in c u m b e n t u p o n M r. W e st to g iv e L in c o ln B e n e f it th e p r o o f

it re q u ire d th a t h e w a s s til l in su ra b le. (R . at 6 0 a ); s ee § 510( k) (re q u irin g a lap se d in su re d to p ro d u c e “ e v id e n c e o f in su ra b ili ty sati sfa ctoryto the co m p an y . ”). L i ncol n B enef

i thad the r i ght , s t atut ori l yand undert he t er m s of t he Pol i cy , t o deci de w hethert he evi dence pr ovi ded by th e W e s ts w a s s a tis f

a c to ry p ro o f

o f M r. W e s t’ s in s u ra b ility. See R ie bel , 1 7 9 A . at 4 4 8 ; F is hm an , 1 8 3 A. a t 1 0 2

. At t h e t i m e of hi s death, the U nderw ri ti n g D ep artm en t had n o t dec ided w h ether t he s t at ement s on t he appl i cat i on pr ovi ded sat i s fac t or yevi dence o f in su ra b ili ty . M rs. W e st d o e s n o t a rg u e th a t L in c o ln B e n e f it w as arbi t r ary , capr i ci ous , oreven unr eas onabl e i n notdeci di ng t he m er i t s of t he appl i cat i on for r ei ns t at ement w i t hi n el even day s of i t s recei pt. T hu s, rei nst at em ent w as not effect ed b ecauseE ven i f L i ncol n B enef i t had eval uat ed t he i nfor m at i on 3 on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e i n f o r ma t i o n wou l d n o th a v e p r o v i d ed s at i s fac t or yproo f o f M r . W es t ’ s cont i nued i ns ur abi l i t y . T he appl i cat i on as ked, i n t he pas t ten y ear s orfort he t i m e dur i ng w hi ch M r . W es tw as i ns ur ed und er the Pol i cy , w hetherhe had been “ di agnos ed w i t h, s oughtorr eceiv ed tr eatm entoradvi ce for : heartatt ack, di s eas e of c or onary art er i es orot herbl ood ves s el s , ot herheartdi s or der , hi gh bl o o d pr es s ur e, di abet es , or s t r oke. ” M r s . W es t ’ s ans w er s of bot h “y es ” and “ no” ar e c o n f lictin g in th e m se lv e s. M o re o v e r , w h e n a sk e d f o r “ f u ll det ai l s , i ncl udi ng di agnos i s , sev eri t y , t r eatm ent , name and addr es s of doct or s , hos pi t al s , and cl i ni cs , ” she w r ot e “c ont r ol l ed w i t h m edi cat i on. ” H erans w erw as no t resp ons i ve t o t he q u e stio n a sk e d a n d d id n o t p ro v id e th e a d d iti o n a l d e tails re q u e ste d b yL in c o ln B e n e f it t o a ss ist th e c o m p a n yin d e ter m in in g M r. W e st’s c o n tin u e d in su ra b ili ty

. E v e n if L in c o ln B e n e f it h a d re view ed the app l i c a tio n , M rs. W e st’s a n sw e r w o u ld h a v e b e e n in s u f

f ic ie n t f o r i m m e d ia te re in s ta te m e n t. See Stager , 189 A

. at778- 79. W e ar e ur ged t o appl yt he s peci fi c hol di ng i n C ol l is t er , 4 s uch t hat by acc ept i ng t he W es t s ’ paym ent of $228. 51 b ef o re deci di ng w hether t o r ei ns t at e, a t empora r ycontr actof i ns ur ance a ro se b e tw e e n L in c o ln B e n e f it an d M r. W e s t th a t L in c o ln B e n e f it m a y n o t n o w d is c la im

. See 388 A

. 2d at1355. N ot hi ng a b o u t C ol l is t eri t s el f ors ubs equentcas e l aw s ugges t s t hat 22 L i nco l n B enef

i thad no t y etaccep t ed h i s appli cat i on . M r. W est 3 w a s n o t in su re d a t th e tim e o f h is d e a th a n d L in c o ln B e n e f it i s no tcon t ractuall yob l i gated t o p ayben efi t s. 4t empora r yi ns ur ance m ayar i s e w hen an appl i cat i on for r ei ns t at em ent

r athert han a new pol i cy i s pendi ng. N one of the cas es ci t ed b y the m aj or i t yort he di s s enti n C ol l is t ersp e a k to reinstatem en t. C o m m en tat o rs discu ss co n tr ac ts fo r t em p o rary i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e i n t h e c o n t e x to f n e w p o l i c i e s o n l y. C om pa re R u s s & S e g a lla , supra , § 13. 1 and P et er N ash S w is h e r, I

ns ur ance Bi nders R evis i t ed , 39 T or t T r i al & I ns . Pr ac. L

. J. 1 0 1 1 , 1 0 2 4 -25 (20 0 4 ) w ith B e s t, supra , § 13. 7 and R uss & S e g a lla , supra , §§ 33: 1- 33: 119. A n ent i r el ydi ffe r entl egal s t ructur e appl i es t o appl i cat i ons forr ei ns t at em ent

. N ei t her comm ent at or s norcour t s confl at e the tw o. T he cl eardi ffe r ence i s tha ts t atut or yand contr actual obl i gat ion s, des cr i bed supra , govern an appl i cat i on for reinstatem e n t a n d sim p lyd o n o t app lyto an ap p li ca ti o n fo r a new pol i cy . U pon l aps e of a n i ns ur ance pol i cy , t he contr actual pr ovi s i ons governi ng r ei ns t at ement r emai n i n for ce unt i l t he a llo tte d tim e to a p p ly f

o r r e in s ta te m e n t h a s p a s s e d

. R o th sc h ild , 162 A

. at466. T hus , anyact i on t aken t ow ard r ei ns t at ement m us tcompl y w it h t he contr actual ors t atut or yt er m s t hat c o n tin u e to b e in e f

f e c t. I d. ; s ee § 5 1 0 (k ); B e s t, supra , § 13. 7; R u ss & S eg all a, supra , § 33. 8 ( w hethert he i ns ur ed has a r i ght t o r ei ns t at e a pol i cy“i s det er m i ned fr om t he contr actof insu ran ce ” o r pe rt inen t st atute). 23 B . U n d e r th e L a w o f

th e R e a so n a b le E xpect at i ons of t he I ns ur ed M r s . W es tar gues , how ever , tha therexpec t at i on t hat cover ag e w oul d exi s tupon s ubm i s s i on of t he appl i cat i on andW e have veryl i t t l e di r ecti nfor m at i on as t o w h att he 5 i ns ur ed, M r . W es t , expec t ed r egar di ng r ei ns t at ement orw hether he expect ed any t hi ng at al l

. I ti s unknow n w hetherhe r ead the Pol i cy . A l l corr es pondence fr om L i ncol n B enef i tw as addr e s s ed to h im , w h ich h e th e n g a v e to h is w if e to h a n d le. P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts a p p e a r to h a v e a llo w e d th e b e n e f icia ry ’s e x p e c tatio n s to in f o rm th e c o u rt ’s d e c is io n o n w h a t th e in s u re d e x p e c te d , s ee Bi e r er , 46 1 A

. 2d 21 6, and i tapp ears t hat M r. and M rs . W est spok e abo ut the m at t ers herei n d i scussed. W e w i l l al l ow M rs . W est ’s perspe c tiv e t o inform ou r deci si on on w hat M r. W est expec t ed. 24 p a y m e n t s h o u ld c o n tro l th e o u tco m e . U n d e r th e re a so n a b le 5 ex p ec tat ion s an aly sis, M rs. W est “m ayn o t com p lai n that [h er] r eas onabl e expe ct at i ons w er e frus t r at ed bypol i cyl i m i t at i ons w hi ch ar e cl earand unambi guous . ” S e e Fr a in , 640 A

. 2d at 1354. T he r ei ns t at ement p rov i s i on, des cr i bed above , i s cl ear a n d u n a m b ig u o u s a s to th e c o n d iti o n s p re c e d e n t to re in sta tem e n t. Itis also c lea r th a t th o se c o n d iti o n s w e re n o t m e t. Y eteven t he m ostcl earl y -w ri t t en p oli cyl i m i t at i on w i ll n o t b i n d M r s . W e s t i f Li n c o l n Be n e f i tmi s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e t e r ms a n d condi t i ons underw hi ch r ei ns t at ement w oul d be ef fec t ed and cr eat ed a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on t hatcover age w oul d be im m e d iate . T h e o n lyc o m m u n ica tio n f r o m L in c o ln B e n e f

it t o th e W e sts o n th e to p ic o f re in sta tem e n t w a s b ylette r. If L in c o ln B enef i t, in t hos e l et t er s , cr eat ed a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on t hat M r . W es tw oul d be i ns ur ed i m m edi at el yupon paym entof t heM r s . W e s ta r g u e s t h a ts h e a n d M r . W e s te x pect ed 6 cover age t o s t ar ti m m edi at el yupon s ubm i t t i ng paym entfort he ov erdue pr emi um beca us e ther e w as no r eas on t o bel i eve that his app l i cat i on w ou l d be den i ed. T he W est s kn ew t hat M r. W est di s cl os ed both hi s hi gh bl ood pr es s ur e and the medi ci ne he w as t aki ng t o contr ol i ton hi s i ni t i al appl i cat i on forl if e i ns ur ance . H e re ce ived a ph y sical ex am w ith in si x to ei g h t m o n ths b ef o re t he W es t s fi l ed the appl i cati o n forr ei ns t at ement and hi s bl ood pr es s ur e w as fi ne. A ccor di ng t o M r s . W es t , “I j us tas s um ed that s i n ce I se ntt he moneyt hat[t he Pol i cy ] w oul d have be en re in sta ted b e c a u se n o th in g h a d c h a n g e d a s f a r a s h is h e a lth

. . . . ” (W es tD ep. 55: 18- 56: 3. ) T hi s s ubj ect i ve bel i ef i s not per t i nentt o oureval uat i on of t hei rexpec t at i ons of i ns ur ance cover age, how eve r . Penns y l vani a court s l ook onl yt o w hether t he i ns ur er c rea ted i n t he i ns ur ed a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of cover age, not w hether t he i ns ur ed came t o an ind epende nt c o n c l u s io n th a t c o v e ra g e e x is te d o r w o u ld e x is t. M at con D i am ond, I

nc. , 815 A

. 2d at1115.

25 pas t
- due p rem ium , L i ncol n B enef i tw oul d be r equi r ed t o pay ben efi t s. 6 In the reas on able expectat i on s anal y si s, t he insur er m ust d e m o n stra te th a t th e in su re d d id n o t h a v e a r e a so n a b le e x p e c ta t i o n o f

c o v e ra g e . T

o n ko v ic , 521 A

. 2d at922, 925; B ens al em Tw

p. , 38 F. 3d at 1311. A l t hough C ol l is t err equi r es t hi s s how i ng bycl earand convi nci n g evi dence , 388 A

. 2d at 1 3 5 5 , To n ko vi c expr es s l yappr oved a j ur ychar ge i ns t ruct i ng t hat t he i ns ur er m us t s how a mer e pr eponder ance , 521 A

. 2d at922, 925. B eca us e i ti s t he hea vi erbur den, w e w i l l pr ocee d undert he26 C ol l is t er ev ident i arys t andar d. W hen the part ym ovi ng for s um m aryj udgm entbear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng cert ai n fac t s by c learand con vinci ng evidence, w e m ustevaluat e t he fa ct s in s uppor t of t he m ot i on i n l i ght of t hat evi denti ary b ur den. A n ders on v. Li ber t

y Lobby, I

nc. , 477 U

. S. 242, 252 ( 1986). A c c o rd in g ly , w e m u st d e ter m in e , h e re , w h e th e r L in c o ln B e n e f it has s how n w i t h convi nci ng cl ar i t yt hat t he W es t s di d nothave a re aso n ab le ex p ec tat ion that insu ran ce co v era g e w o u ld restart i m m ediat el yup on rem i t t ance o f pay m ent orw hether M rs . W est has come for w ard w i t h s uffi ci entevi dence t o defe att hat s h o w in g . See i d. ; E lv. Southeas t er n P a. Trans p. A uth. , 479 F .3 d 2 3 2 , 2 3 7 -3 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). E v id e n c e th a t is m e re ly c o lo ra b le o r n o t sig n if

ica n tlyp ro b a tiv e is in su f f icie n t to c re a te a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a t e ri a l f a c t f o r t ri a l. See Anders on , 477 U .S . at 2 4 8 ; El , 479 F. 3d at238. T h e c h ro n o lo g y o f c o rre sp o n d e n c e b e tw e e n L in c o ln B enef i tand M r . W es tdemonst r at es t hatt he W es t s di d nothave a r eas onabl e expect at i on of i m m edi at e cove r age upon s ubm i s s i on of t he appl i cat i on for r ei ns t at ement and paym entof t he over due pr emi um . L i ncol n B enef i ts entM r . W es tnot i ces of paym entappr oxi m at el y o n e m ont h befor e ea ch pr emi um w as due. O n el even oc cas i ons , w hen the pr emi um w as notr ece i ved byi t s due dat e, L i ncol n B enef it sent fol l ow - up l et t er s s t at i ng th a t h is p o li c yv a lu e w a s in su f f icie n t to c o v e r th e c o sts o f h is i ns ur ance . T hes e l et t er s r eques t ed paym entof t he over due pr emi um as s oon as p os s i bl e. T heynot ed thatw i t houtt he p re m iu m p a y m e n t, his P o licyw o u ld ter m in a te. O n six o c c a sio n s, w h e n th e W e sts still d id n o t re m it p a y m e n t, L in c o ln B en ef it s enta s econd not i ce of paym entdue. E ach s econd not i ce a s ked aga i n forpaym ent of t he pr emi um . B eca us e the27 Pol i cyw as i n gr ace per i od, t he onl y nece s s ary act i on t o keep the P o l i c yi n e f

f e c twa s t o p a yt h e o v e r d u e p r e mi u m. O n A pr i l 1, 2004, L i ncol n B enef i t s entM r . W es ta not i ce of paym ent due i nfor m i ng hi m t hat hi s quar t erl y p rem i um p a y m e n t w a s d u e o n M a y1 , 2 0 0 4

. T h e p re m iu m w a s n o t p a id byt hatdat e. O n M ay3, 2004, L i ncol n B enef i t s ent a fol l ow - up lette r lik e th e o n e s d e sc rib e d a b o v e , in f o rm in g h im th a t h is Pol i cyw oul d t er m i nat e on J ul y3, 2004, i f hi s pr emi um w as not p aid. I tas ked hi m t o s ubm i tpaym entas s oon as pos s i bl e, p re f e ra b lyw ith in ten d a y s. O n M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , L in c o ln B e n e f it s entM r . W es ta s econd not i ce of pr emi um due. O n J ul y 5, 2004, L i ncol n B enef i t s ent M r . W est a l et t er s t at i ng t hat“[t ] he gr ace per i od for p r emi um paym enton y our po l i cyhas exp i red. ” (R

. at18 3 a .) It adv i sed t hat M r. W est coul d appl yforr ei ns t at ement

. T he l et t ers t at ed, “[t ] o cont i nue y ourval uabl e cove r age, compl et e the A ppl i cat i on for R ei ns t at ement for m on t he bac k and r etur n i tw i t h y ourpaym ent of $228. 51. U pon underw r i t i ng appr oval, and r ece i ptof t he s uffi ci entpaym ent , cover age w i l l cont i nue uni nt errupt ed. ” (I d. ) M r . W es ts how ed M r s . W est t he document

. M r s . W es tr ead onl yt he fi r s ts ent ence of t he exc erptquot ed and i nt erpr et ed the lan g u a g e “ to c o n tin u e y o u r v a lu a b le c o v e ra g e ” to m e a n “ to c o n tin ue [u nint e rru p ted ] y o u r v a lu a b le c o v e ra g e ” ra th e r th a n “ to [r es t ar taft erces s at i on] y ourval uabl e cove r age. ” ( W es tD ep. 4 3 :2 4 -4 4 :2 ); s ee W eb ster’s 3d N ew Int’l D ict ion ary 4 9 3 (19 8 1 ). She t houghtt hati f sh e “f i l l ed outt he form and s enti n t he m on ey , t he p oli cyw ou l d co nti nu e. ” (W est D ep. 45 : 2-4. ) M rs . W es tdi d notr ead, or does not r emem ber r eadi ng, t he l anguage28 i n t he l et t ercl ear l ys t at i ng t hatunderw r i t i n g appr oval of t he a p p lica tio n w a s a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t to re in sta tem e n t. M rs . W estt hen turned to t h e a p p li cat i on on t he reverse o f the l et t er . She fi l l ed outt he bl anks att he t op fort he pol i cy num berand the n am e of t he i ns ur ed. She t hen r ead a nd a n sw e re d q u e stio n s b e lo w re g a rd in g M r. W e st’s h e a lth

. S h e d id notr ead the par agr aph i m m edi at el yb elow the bl anks fort he p o licyn u m b e r a n d th e n a m e o f th e in su re d th a t sh e f

ille d o u t, an d i mme d i a t e l ya b o v e t h e q u e s t i o n s t h a ts h e r e a d and an s w er ed, w hi ch s t at ed, “I ( eac h under s i gned) r eques tt hatt he C o m p a n yre in sta te th is p o licy

. . . . C o v e ra g e w ill n o t sta rt a g a in unt i l t his req u es ti s appr oved byt he companyand al l r equi r ed pr emi um s and i nt er es t ar e pai d. I f t hi s r eques ti s notappr oved, a n ya m o u n t te n d e re d w ill b e re tu rn e d .” (R . a t 1 8 7 a .) L i ncol n B enef

i tdi d notm i s r epr es entt he condi t i ons pr ece dentt o r ei ns t at ement

. T h e t extof t he l et t erand of the a p p lica tio n c lea rly sta te th a t u n d e rw riting a p p ro v a l b yL in c o ln B e n e f it w a s re q u ire d b e f

o re c o v e ra g e w o u ld b e g in a g a in . T h is s t at ement i s ent i r el yco n s i s t entw i t h t he cl earl anguage of t he P o lic y i t s e lf

a n d th e s ta tu te , supra , governi ng appl i cat i ons for re in sta tem e n t. M rs. W e st m a y n o t a v o id th e se c o n d iti o n s w ith th e m e re a ss e rtio n th a t sh e e x p e c ted c o v e ra g e to b e g in i m m edi at el ybeca us e of a s i ngl e s ent ence i n t he l et t erand a p p lica tio n f

o r re in sta tem e n t. M or eover , t he r ecor d of t he pr evi ous corr espondence fr om L i ncol n B enef

i t t o M r . W es tr egar di ng paym entof over due pr emi um s demonst r at es t hat i t w as unr eas onabl e t o expec tt hat su b m iss io n o f

p a y m ent and a co m plet ed a p p lica tio n w o u ld re su lt29 in im m e d iate re in sta tem e n t. W h e n th e W e sts w e re late in pay i ng t hei rpr emi um buts t i l l w i t hi n t he gr ace per i od, im m ed iat e p ay m e n t w as, i n fa ct, all that w as re q u ir ed fo r M r. W e st’s P o licyto re m a in in e f f e c t. E a c h n o tice f

ro m L in c o ln B ene f i ts t a t e d e x a c t l yt h a t

. Th e r e i n s t a t e me n tl e t t e rwas d if f e re n t, ho w e v e r. It w a s ac c o m p a n ied b y a n a p p lica tio n w ith q u e stio n s a b o u t M r. W e st’s h e a lth

– so m e th in g L in c o ln B e n e f it had nev er before r equ i red t o k eep the P oli cy i n fo rce. T hu s, s i m pl ybyt he nat ur e of t he t r ans act i on, t he W es t s w er e on not i ce t hatt hi s t i m e, t her e w as atl eas tone addi t i onal l evel of r evi ew t hatw o u ld t ake pl ace befor e the Pol i cyw oul d be ef fec t i ve. Fur t her , M r s . W es t ’ s t es t i m ony i ndi cat es t hats he di d notbel i eve t hatt he appl i cat i on w oul d b e d en i ed. T hi s demonst r at es an u n d e rsta n d in g th a t t h e a p p lica tio n w a s s o m e th in g th a t L in c o ln B e n e f it h a d th e p o w e r to a c c e p t ord e n y, a n d n o ts i m p l y a m i n i s t e r i a l e x e r c i s e t h a te f f e c t e d r e i n s t a t e m e n ti m m e d i a t e l y. I n l i gh to f

t h e t o t a l i t yo f

t h e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , t he evi dence i s cl earand convi nci ng: i tw as unr eas onabl e fort he W es t s t o expec tt he Pol i cyt o be i n for ce at t he t i m e theym ai l ed t he overdu e prem i um and app l i cat i on for rei nst at em ent. T hu s, e v e n u nd er the reasonab l e exp ect a tio n s a n a ly sis , L in c o ln B e n e f it has no obl i g at i on t o paybenef i t s on J ames W es t , J r . ’ s l aps ed pol i cyof l i fe i ns ur ance . V. For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he orde rof the D istric t C o u rt.