FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 1, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 8- 12 33 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 01 74 1- CV-T-2 3- MAP SUSAN KEMBERLING, JOHN CIAM BRONE, EDWARD KAUPLA, as Co -Tru st ees of t he Kem co Ch ari tabl e Trus t Dat edFeb ru ary 2, 1 99 8, Pl ai nt iff s- Co un te r-Defe nd an ts -Ap pe ll an ts , ve rs us METLIFE LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, Defen da nt -Co un te r-Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 1, 2 01 0) Befo re MAR CUS an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andVOORHEES, Dis tri ctJu dg e. *

Honora ble Richard L . Voorhe es, United States District Judge f or the Western D istrict of * North Carolina, sitting by designation.HILL, Circ ui t J ud ge :

Su e Kem be rli ng , Jo hn Cia m

br on e an d EdwardKaup la , co- tru st ees of t he Kem co Ch ari tabl e Tru stda te d F eb ru ary 2, 1 99 8 (t he “ Trus t” ), br ou gh t thi s ac ti on ag ai ns t M et Life Life a ndAnn ui ty Com pa ny of Co nn ect ic ut(“ Met Life ”) fo r br each of co nt ractby fail ur e to pa y th e p ro ceed s o f a l ife in su ran ce p ol ic y is su edby Met Life to Lee Kem

be rli ng , nam in g t he Trus t as be ne fic ia ry . Met Life 1
co un te rcl ai m edag ai ns t the Trus t fo r res ci ss io n o f Kem be rli ng ’s li fe i ns ur an ce po li cy . After atri al , th e jury retu rn eda ve rd ic t fo r Met Life . The Tru stap pe al ed
. Fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we af firm . I. In20 05 , Lee Kem

be rli ng was asev en ty-ni ne -y ear- ol d s uc ces sf ul en gi ne er an d b us in es sm an . He was ch ie f ex ecu ti ve off ic er o f Kem co Sy st em s, In c. (“ Kem co ”), a 1 00 -em

pl oyee co m

pa ny in C le arwat er, Fl or id a, whi ch he ha d fo un de d t hi rty y ears earl ie r. Kem be rli ng ha d, h owe ve r, a v ari ety of s eri ou s m ed ic al is su es , in cl ud in g h y pe rte ns iv e car di ov as cu lar di se as e, hi gh an d abn orm al ch ol es te ro l, h ig h a ndab no rm al tri gl y ceri de s, an d, h ig h a ndab no rm al bl oo d pr es su re. The policy

was issued by

Trave lers L ife a

nd Annuity

Company

(Tra veler s) to 1 Kemberling on April 13, 2005. MetL ife a cquire d Trave lers on Jul y 1, 2005, and assumed a ll its obligations under the policy
. 2As the bu lkof Ke m be rli ng ’s wealt h was he ldin il li qu idKem co st oc k, h is
es ta te pl an ni ng po rtf

ol io co ns is te d o f a l arg e p erce nt ag e o f li fe i ns ur an ce, as a m ean s t o p ay

est at e ta xe s an d t o p ro vi de fin an ci al sec ur it y forhi s fa m il y

aft er h is de ath. Ho wev er, m os t o f th es e p ol ic ie s wer e se co nd -to -d ie po li ci es , lea vi ng hi s wife vu ln erab le sh ou ldhe pre de ceas e h er, wit ho utad equa te li qu id it y to m ai nt ai n he r li fes tyle an d p ay

th e p rem iu m s o n t he sec on d- to -d ie po li ci es . In 2 00 4, 2 Kem be rli ng ’s adv is or s s ug ge st edad di ti on al term in su ran ce t o e li m in at e th at ex po su re. Kem be rli ng co ns ul te d Wayne W eav er, an in de pe nd en t i ns ur an ce b ro ke r do in g b us in es s as Fir stFin an ci al Res ou rces , a so le pro pr ie to rs hi p, i n C le arwat er, Fl or id a, who ha d p rev io us ly secu redli fe i ns ur an ce p ol ic ie s fo r hi m . In fa ct , si nc e 19 97 , W eav er h adob ta in edap pr ox im at el y $4 0 m il li on in li fe i ns ur an ce co ve rag e fo r Kem be rli ng , fro m

at l eas t s ev endi ffer en t i ns ur an ce ca rri ers . Met Life was n ot on e o f th os e carrie rs . W eav er ap pr oa ch edat l eas t fi ve in su ran ce carri ers see ki ng to acqui re $ 10
m il li on inli fe i ns ur an ce b en efi ts on Kem be rli ng ’s li fe al on e. Desp it e h is m ul ti pl e he al th is su es , he was pre -ap pr ov edby MetLi fe fo r pu rch as e o f a l ife in su ran ce

A sec ond-to-die life insurance policy is a two-per son life insuranc e policy which pay s 2 only afte r both insureds have died. 3po li cy . 3

Upo n h is pre -ap pr ov al , onMarc h 1 0, 2 00 5, Kem be rli ng si gn eda bl an k Met Life ap pl ic at io n fo rm en ti tl ed“ PartOne Ap pl ic at io n fo r Life Ins ur an ce.” He di d n otco m

pl et e th e fo rm . Abo ve Kem be rli ng ’s si gn atur e was a de cl arat io n st at in g, i n re le va ntpa rt: (c) No ag en t i s au th or iz ed : (1 ) to m ak e, al te r or di sc harg e an y co nt ract ; (2 ) to waiv e o r ch an ge an y co nd it io n o r pr ov is io n o f an y co nt ract , app li cat io n, o r rec ei pt ; o r (3 ) to acce ptany ris k o r m ak e an y de ci si on co nc ern in g i ns ur ab il it y . On t ha t s am e d ay , W eav er ex ecu te d aLife P ro du cer C on tra ct(th e

“ Co nt ract ”) wi th Met Life . In the Co nt ract , Met Life an d Weav er ag reedth at , subjec t t o the li m it at io ns in th e Co nt ract , W eav er wo ul d “ actas [ it s] age ntforth e pu rp os e o f so li ci ti ng ap pl ic at io ns for
. . . [Me tLi fe] pro du ct s,” a ndto “ co ll ectth e fir stor s in gl e p rem iu m s wi thanap pl ic at io n a ndan y ot he r pr em iu m s [M et Life ]
m ay asky outo co ll ect .” The C on tra ctau th or iz edW eav er t o a ctas M et Life ’s

“ ag en t u nd er ap pl ic ab le st at e in su ran ce l aws to so li ci t, n eg ot ia te an d e ffec t the
co nt ract s co nt em

pl at edhe reu nd er.” Weave r subm it te d Kem be rli ng ’s in su ran ce
The re cord is cle ar that MetL ife’s unde rwriter s pre- approve d Kemberling ba sed upon 3 their re view and r ece ipt of: a Dec ember 2004 medical que stionnaire; a De cembe r 2004 EKG stress test; a urinaly sis; his blood test results; statements from Kembe rling ’s per sonal phy sician; and, Ke mberling ’s medica l rec ords for the last ten year s, which re veale d his hy perte nsion, car diovascular

disease, c holesterol proble ms, and hig h blood pressure
. 4ap pl ic at io n t o M et Life
.

Two d ay s af

te r subm is si on of t he ap pl ic at io n, o n M arch 12 , inres po ns e to a ne wsp ap er ad , Kem

be rli ng dro ve to a ch ur ch fora fu ll bo dy scan by L ife Lin e Scre en in g, wh ic h i nc lu de d ascr een in g o f hi s ca ro ti d arte rie s. OnMarc h 2 3, 2 00 5, th e Life Lin e Scr een in g R ep ort was de li ve redto Kem be rli ng ’s ho m e b y

Fed eral Exp res s. Th e rep ort d es cri be d a“ fin di ng of p os si bl e si gn ifi can ce” r el at edto hi s rig htcaro ti d a rte ry . One m on th lat er, o n Ap ril 13 , Met Life is su edth e $ 10 m il li on li fe i ns ur an ce po li cy to Kem be rli ng . The p ol ic y

requi redanan nu al pre m iu m pa ym en t o f $7 20 ,00 0, wi th anin it ia l p aym en t o f $6 0,0 00 , du e o n the da te of i ss ua nc e. The po li cy co nt ai ne d t he fol lo win g “ Co ve rag e Effec ti ve Date End or se m en t” : No i ns ur an ce wi ll tak e eff ectpri or to th e la te r of

th e Is su e Dat e o r th e Po li cy Date sh ownon th e Po li cy Su m m ary. Ins ur an ce i ss ue d wi ll ta ke effe cton th e la te r of th e Is su e Dat e o r th e Po li cy Date sh own on th e Po li cy

Su m m ary if, o n t he lat er o f th e Is su e Dat e o r th e Po li cy Date , th e h ea lth a nd

othe r co nd it io ns rel at in g t o i ns ur ab il it y re mai n co mpl et e a nd

tr ue as desc ri be d i n the ap pl ic at io n f

or th is po li cy (em ph as is ad de d)
. On Ap ril 20 , W eav er d el iv eredth e p ol ic y to Kem be rli ng . One wee k a fte r th at , on Apri l 2 7, Kem

be rli ng ha d a n app oi nt m en t wi th hi s p ers on al ph y si ci anan d qu es ti on edhi m

ab ou t the scr een in g re po rt. Th e p hysic ian re ferr edhi m to a sp eci al is t. 5On M ay 11 , Kem be rli ng m etwith t he sp eci al is t. Alt ho ug h t he sp eci al is t co ns id eredKem

be rli ng asym

pt om at ic of c aro ti d d is eas e, he reco m m en de d a de fin it iv e u lt ras ou nd . On Ma y 23 , Kem be rli ng ha d ade fin it iv e cer eb ro va sc ul ar dupl ex sca n. OnJu ly 14, the sp eci al is t i nf orm edKem

be rli ng th athe ha d c aro ti d st en os is of t he rig htcaro ti d a rte ry , with abl oc ka ge ran gi ng fro m 80 % to 99 %. On Au gu st23 , Kem

be rli ng in fo rm edW eav er o f th e car ot idart ery sc reen in g an d s ub se qu en t d ia gn os is
. Three m on th s l at er, i n No ve m be r , Kem be rli ng di ed 4 fro m cau se s u nr el at edto hi s caro ti d a rte ry . As Kem be rli ng di edpri orto th e effe ct iv e d at e o f th e p ol ic y ’s two -y ear i nc on te st ab il it y claus e, Met Life co nduc te d a
ro ut in e in ve st ig at io n i nt o t he cir cu m st an ces su rro un di ng Kem be rli ng ’s dea th an d th e is su an ce o f th e p ol ic y . In J ul y 20 06 , Met Life res ci nd edKem be rli ng ’s po li cy , 5 de nyin g c ov erag e o n t he gro un d t ha t the po li cy ne ve r wen t i nt o e ffec t as Kem be rli ng fai le d t o d is cl os e th e Life Lin e Scr een in g t es t. Two m on th s l at er the Trus t b ro ug htth is act io n. At the co nc lu si on of t he tri al , th e d is tri ctco urt re jecte d t he Trus t’s re qu es t
As owner

of the policy , the Trust paid MetL ife a total of $675,000 in premiums from the 4 date the policy

was issued in April 2005, to Kembe rling ’s death in November 2005. O f that, some $615,000, or 90%, of these pre miums were a ccepted by MetL ife a fter August 2005, the date Ke mberlinginformed Weave r of the c arotid ar tery scre eningand subseque nt diagnosis. An incontestability

clause in an insuranc e policy preve nts an insurer f

rom revoking 5 cover ag e bec ause of

alleg ed misstatements by the insured a fter a

specifie d period, in this case , two year s. 6th atitin st ru ctth e jury the y co ul d fi ndth atW eav er was Met Life ’s actua l o r ap pa ren t ag en t af

te r de li ve ry

of the Po li cy

so th athi s kno wled ge of t he Life Li ne Scre en in g Tes t re su ltco ul d b e im pu te d t o M et Life , th ereb y effe ctua ti ng co ve rag e un de r th e p ol ic y . In s o ru li ng , th e co urt s ta te d: Alt ho ug h a n i ns ur er h as co ns tru ct iv e kno wled ge of f act s d is cl os edto it s ag en t wh il e act in g wi th in th e sc op e o f hi s ag en cy , a r ea so na bl e ju ryco uld n ot

ha ve co nc lu de d f

ro m th e evi de nc e a dduc ed at tr ia l tha t Kemb er li ng

disc lo se d the pe rt in en t i nf ormat io n t o Weav er

wh en W ea ver ac te d a s Met

Li fe ’s au th or iz ed

ag en t. W eav er’s actua l au th or ity to actforMet Life is de fin edin th e Life Pro du cer C on tra ct , whi ch au th or iz es W eav er t o s ol ic itap pl ic at io ns , to subm itco m pl et ed ap pl ic at io ns to Met Life , to co ll ectfir stor s in gl e p rem iu m s al on g wi th a p ol ic y ap pl ic at io n, an d t o c ol le ctsu ch subs eque ntpre m iu m s as Met Life ask s Weav er t o c ol le ct . After Weav er co m pl et edth e o nl y act s h e was au th or iz edto pe rfo rm , W eav er’s au th or it y un de r th e Life Pro du cer C on tra ctto actforMet Life with re sp ectto th e Kem be rli ng po li cy ceas ed , and- ab se ntso m e o th er s ou rce o f actua l o r ap pa ren t au th or ity - he rev ert edto th e ro le of abro ke r act in g s ol el y on be ha lf of hi s l on g- ti m e cl ie ntKem be rli ng . . . Bec au se th e rec or d i nc lu de s n o ot he r ev id en ce o f W eav er’s actua l o r ap pa ren t au th or it y to actfor Met Life with re sp ectto th e Kem be rli ng po li cy

an d n o e vi de nc e th at W eav er l earn edab ou t the Life Li ne scr een in g dur in g h is servi ce as a so li ci ti ng ag en t, an y

in fo rm at io n Weav er m ay ha ve ob ta in edfro m Kem be rli ng aft er the is su an ce o f th e p ol ic y co ul d n otbe im

pu te d t o Met Life
. The di stric t co urt, the refo re, rem ov edth e is su e o f W eav er’s ag en cy st atus wit h M et Life fro m

th e jury’ s co ns id erat io n. Th is is th e p rimary is su e o n app eal
. 6 The jury may have be en entitled to find for the Trust on its other theory of cove rag e, 6 namely , that Kemberling ha d no duty to supplement the initial application. The jury found, howeve r, that Ke mberlingmade a materia l misreprese ntation to MetL ife by failingto notify

it of 7II.

W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w de no vo , vi ewin g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g pa rty. D’Ang el o v . Sch oo l Bd
. , 49 7 F .3d12 03 , 12 08 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e a p ro po se d jury in st ru ct io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Palmer

v. Bd. o f Reg en ts , 20 8 F .3d96 9, 9 73 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Und er th is de fere nt ia l s ta nd ard , we wil l re ve rs e “ if we are l eftwith asubs ta nt ia l an d in erad ic ab le do ub t as to whethe r th e jury was pr op erl y gu id edin it s d el ib erat io ns .” Ca rt er v. Decisi on One Co rp . , 12 2 F .3d99 7, 1 00 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) . The jury ch arg e m us t b e co ns id eredas awho le
. Uni te d Sta tes v. Sta rk e , 62 F.3d13 74 , 13 81 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Ther e is no requi rem en t t o s ub m ita qu es ti on to th e jury
un le ss th e ev id en ce i s o f su ch a ch arac te r th atitco ul d warran t the jury in fin di ng a ve rd ic t [o n t ha t que st io n] infav orof t he reque st in g p arty . Ander so n v . Lib er ty Lo bb y In c., , 47 7 U.S. 2 42 , 25 0- 51 (19 86 ). A di st ric t co urt d oe s n otab us e it s di sc ret io n i n re fu si ng to in st ru ctth e jury onanis su e n otpro pe rly supp orte d b y th e reco rd
. Id
. the L ife L ine scre eningor its results, and ente red a verdic t for MetL ife on its counterclaim for rec ision of the contra ct. We find no merit to the Trust’s a ppeal of the district court’s r efusa l to direc t a ver dict for it on the duty to supplement issue. Nor do we find any merit in the claim that the district court a

bused its discretion if re fusingsever al re quested jury instructions on this i ssue. Nor did the district cour

t abuse its discretion in per mitti ngthe testimony

of Eug ene Z immerlink as to industry

underwriting guidelines, a topic we ll within hi s persona l knowledg e. 8Ourrev ie w of the reco rdin th is cas e supp orts th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng th at

th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce upo n wh ic h t o i ns tru ctth e jury tha t the y were en ti tl edto fin d t ha t Weave r was Met Life ’s age ntat t he ti m e h e le arn edof Kem be rli ng ’s Life Li ne tes t re su lt s. Fi rs t, the reco rdev id en ce i s cl ear t ha t Weave r was anin de pe nd en t i ns ur an ce ag en t/br ok er, n otth e g en eral ag en t o f Met Life
. Se e Amstar Ins . Co. v. C

adet , 86 2 S o.2 d 7 36 , 73 9 (F la . 3dDCA 19 97 ). W eav er was 7
no t b ou ndby con tra ctto workfor or s ol ic itin su ran ce fo r Met Life on ly. Ind eed , W eav er h adsec ur edli fe i ns ur an ce co ve rag e fro m nu m ero us ot he r in su ran ce co m pa ni es forKem

be rli ng an d h is fam il y

ov er the pri orsev eny ears . W eav er te st ifi edth athe was am id dl em anact in g i n t he be stin te res ts of Ke m be rli ng . Fu rth erm or e, th e Co nt ractbe twee n M et Life an d Weav er s pe ci fic al ly id en ti fie d Weav er as anin de pe nd en t co nt ract oran d n otanem pl oyee of Met Life
. W eav er was no t ev enab le to di rect ly con ta ctMet Life , in st eadha vi ng to go th ro ug h h is bro ke rag e g en eral ag en t, Al be rt B an ks an d abro ke rag e g en eral ag en cy cal le d Adva nc edPla nn in g S erv ic es (“ APS”). Of the hu nd red s o f in su ran ce po li ci es so ldby W eav er, thi s was th e fi rs t an d o nl y Met Life po li cy

he so ld
. The refo re, Weaverwas a n i nd ep en de ntag en t/br ok er.
Although the issue of the a pplicable law

was ne ver de cided by

the cour t, the parties a gree 7 that the Florida and Wisconsin law of a g ency is “essentially

the same” on ag ency

and re cession. 9Dur in g t he pro ces s o f ap pl y in g fo r th e Me tLi fe p ol ic y , th e p art ie s ag ree t ha t

W eav er ac te d a s M et Life ’s age nt . The Co nt ractbe twee n Weav er an d M et Life , ho wev er, s tri ct ly lim it edW eav er’s au th or ity to th ree t hi ng s: th e so li ci ta ti on of ap pl ic at io ns ; the tak in g o f ap pl ic at io ns ; an d, t he co ll ect io n o f in it ia l p rem iu m s. Onc e th es e th in gs were ac co m pl is he d, t he Co nt ractsp eci fic al ly pro hi bi te d Weav er fro m m ak in g, al te rin g o r di sc ha rg in g a ny con tra ctof i ns ur an ce; waiv in g o r ch an gi ng an y

co nd it io n o f an y

co ntract , app li cat io n, o r rec ei pt ; o r acc ep ti ng an y ris k o r m ak in g a ny deci si on co nc ern in g i ns ur ab il it y .” Met Life , th eref or e, exp li ci tl y di sa vo wedany

in te nt io n t o b e b ou ndby W eav er’s act io ns aft er i ss ua nc e of th e p ol ic y . The Co nt ractga ve W eav er n o autho rit y to bi ndMet Life or t o un de rta ke an y

act s af te r is su an ce o f th e p ol ic y inth e ab se nc e o f an exp li ci t reque st by MetLi fe. In Amstar Ins . Co. , th e in su ran ce ap pl ic at io n s ta te d t ha t the pu ta ti ve ag en t ha d t he “ au th or it y

to so li ci t, re cei ve , andtra ns m itap pl ic at io ns forin su ran ce co nt ract s, b utha d “ no rig ht ” to “ m ak e, al te r, m od ify or d is ch arg e an y co ntractor po li cy is su edon th e b as is of t hi s ap pl ic at io n.” 86 2 S o.2 d a t 7 40 . This lan gu ag e was fou ndto pu t the in su redon no ti ce o f th e li m it at io ns on th e p ut at iv e ag en t’s
au th or it y to acton be ha lf o f th e in su rer. Id
. Thi s s am e la ng ua ge is fou ndinth e Me tLi fe p ol ic y ap pl ic at io n s ig ne d b y 10Kem

be rli ng . It, to o, p utKem

be rli ng on no ti ce tha t Weave r ha d n o autho rit y to act on be ha lf o f Met Life aft er the po li cy was i ss ue d. Th ere was no ev id en ce, th eref or e, fro m whi ch a reas on ab le jury co ul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t Weave r was ei th er Me tLi fe’s ag en t –actua l o r ap pa ren t –aft er the is su an ce o f th e p ol ic y . 8 Inth e ab se nc e o f ev id en ce tha t Weave r was so m e so rt o f ag en t fo r Met Life aft er the po li cy

is su ed , th ere i s n o b as is forim pu ti ng W eav er’s kno wled ge of t he Life Lin e te stres ul ts to Met Life . The Co ntractex pl ic it ly stat edth atW eav er co ul d
no t ac cep t ri sk s, m ak e o r al te r po li ci es , ext en d p ol ic y ob li ga ti on s, o r in cu r li ab il it ie s fo r Met Life . W e h av e lo ng ag o re co gn iz edth at“ Fl or id a cas e law ackno wled ge s t he ge ne ral pri nc ip le of a ge nc y law t ha t kno wled ge of, o r no ti ce t o anag en t o r em

pl oyee is im

pu te d t o t he pri nc ip al [on ly] when itis rece iv edby the
em pl oyee withi n t he sco pe of h er em pl oym en t, an d wh enitis in refe ren ce t o m at te rs ov er wh ic h t he em pl oyee’s au th or it y

ex te nd s.” Co mpu te l, In c. v. Emery Air Frei gh t Co rp . , 91 9 F .2d67 8, 6 85 (11 Cir . 19 90 ). As the di st ric t co urt h el d, th

“ [a]fterW eav er co m

pl et edth e o nl y

act s h e was au th or iz edto pe rfo rm , W eav er’s
au th or it y un de r th e Life Pro du cer c on tra ctto actfor Met Life with re sp ectto th e The Tr ust argues that Weave r’s provision to Kembe rlingof ce rtain illustrations about 8 amendments to the policy afte r it was issued, on stationery bearing the MetL ife letter head, pr oves their cla im of appar ent ag ency . The e vidence is that W eave r ra n these illustrations for his own benef it and not at the re quest of MetL ife. In fac t, Weaver ha d to go thr ough APS to even reque st the illustrations. He could not g o direc tly to MetL ife. This evide nce doe s not support appare nt ag ency . 11Kem

be rli ng po li cy

ceas ed , and
. . . he rev ert edto th e ro le of abro ke r act in g s ol el y on be ha lf o f hi s l on g- ti m e cl ie ntKem be rli ng .” Si nc e, on e can no t b in d t he in su rer wh enth e in su ran ce ap pl ic at io n m ak es it cl ear t ha t the re i s n o autho rit y to do so , th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y he ldth atth ere was no ev id en ce i n t he reco rdth atW eav er h adan y so rt o f au th or it y

to actfor Met Life aft er the po li cy

was i ss ue d, an d, t he refo re, i nf orm at io n Weav er m ay

ha ve ob ta in edfro m

Kem be rli ng aft er the is su an ce o f th e p ol ic y co ul d n otbe im

pu te d t o Met Life
. The jury fo un d t ha t Kem

be rli ng was o bl ig edto tel l M et Life ab ou t the
caro ti d a rte ry

scr een in g a ndth athi s fa il ur e to do so en ti tl edMet Life to res ci ndth e po li cy . W e ag ree. III. W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i n fa vo r of Met Life an d a ga in st th e Tru st . AFFIR MED.

12