### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ay 5, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 10849 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -002 26 -C V -2-W D O -5 JO N A . N IX O N , T rust ee of the N i xon F a m i l y T rus t , da t e d A p r il 1 9 , 2 0 0 0 , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s L I N C O L N N A T I O N A L I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 5, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , W IL S O N an d S T A P L E T O N * , C i rcu i tJu d g es.

___________________________ *Honora ble Walter K. Stapleton, United States Circuit Judg e for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.2

P E R C U R I A M: T hi s di ve r s i ty a c t i on a r i s e s f r om a c l a i m by pl a i nt i f

f - appe l l a ntJ on A . N i xon (“ N i xo n”), as trust ee for the N i xo n F am i l y T rust , t o p roce eds f rom a l i fe i nsurance pol i c y i s s ue d by L i nc ol n N a t i ona l L i f e I ns ur a nc e C om pa ny ( “ L i nc ol n” ) i ns ur i ng the l i fe of N i xo n’ s m other, Ir i s N i xo n (“ M rs . N i xo n”). T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed L i ncol n’ s m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent . W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s order de no vo , r e s o lv in g a ll f

a c tu a l d is p u te s in f

a v o ro f th e n o n - m o v in g p a r ty . Hi c k s on C orp. v. N

orthern C ross arm C o. , Inc. , 3 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 5 9 - 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e v acat e th e o rd er an d rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. B ec ause the part i es ar e f am i l i arw i th the fa ct s, w e r el at e them on l y a s nece ss ary t o exp l ai n o ur deci si on . In short , L i ncol n i ss ued a $4 m i l l i on i nsurance po l i cyon M rs . N i xo n, w ho w as ei gh ty y ea rs ol d atthe t i m e. N i xo n cl ai m s that L i nc ol n’ s a ge nt , L a w r e nc e W i l l i f or d, di d notm e e tw i th M r s . N i xon, di d not w itn e s s h e rs ig n a tu r e o n th e p o lic y ap p lic a tio n , a n d d id n o t p r e s e n t h e rw ith appl i ca t i on pages c on t ai ni ng se vera l heal th q uest i on s. N everthel es s, W i l l i ford f a ls e ly c e r tif

ie d th a t h e h a d m e t w ith M r s . N ix o n a n d a s k e d h e rth e p e r tin e n t h e a lth qu es t i on s. M rs . N i xo n d i ed fr om pancrea t i c c ance r s ho rt l y a ft erthe po l i cyw as i s s ue d. N i x o n arg u es th atL i n co l n sh o u l d b e est o p p ed fro m d en yi n g l i ab i l i ty b ecau seMrs. Nix on provided truthful infor mation about her he alth to L incoln in 1 Dec ember

of 1999. She did not learn shehad pancreatic canc er until April 28, 2000. A meeting occur red on A pril 19, 2000 between Mr. and Mrs. N ix on, Wil liford and F rank Kenney (an e mpl oye eof

Smith B arn e y ’se stateand tr us t serv ic e s a

re a brought in b y

L inc oln to a ssi st with themakingof

po licy of fersto t heNi xons ). Jon N ixon te sti fi e d in hisdepo sition

that du ringthi s meeting , Kenney

told Mrs. Nix on that the insuranc e policy agree d upon by

the par ties was “a done deal,” that “the policy ha[d] been a

pproved a nd ever y thing [was] ready

to go,” seeR2-26- Exh.D-1, p.16, that the policy would be ef

fec tive Februar

y 23, 2000, and that she should write a premium che ck for

$38,953. Thereis thus evidence in the record from which a trier of fac t could find that Lincoln led Mrs. Nixon t o believe on A pril 19 that the insuranc e on her life wa s then in e ff e c t and that su bs e qu e nt cha

ng e s in her h e alth , o ther t

ha n h e r de ath, wereimm ateri al. 3 W i l l i f or d f a i l e d t o a s k r e l e va nthe a l th que s t i ons . W e a gr e e tha tthe r e i s a ge nui ne is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t o n th is is s u e . I

d. at12 60 . G eorgi a l aw i s c l ea r that“ [i ] n an ac t i on on a c on tra ctof i nsurance, the i nsurance com pany i s gener al l y c on si dere d e s t oppe d t o de ny l i abi l i ty on a ny m a tt e ra r i s i ng outof the f r a ud, m i s c onduc t , or negl i gence of an agentof the com pany. If ei ther party m ustsuff

erfr om an i nsurance a gent ’ s m i st ake, i tm ustbe the i nsurance c om pany, hi s pri nci pal . ” O ’ Ke l l y v . Southland L i

f e I ns . C o. , 305 S . E . 2d 873, 875 ( G a . C t . A pp. 1983) ( quot i ng St i l l

s on v . P r ude nt i al

I ns . C o. , 42 S . E . 2d 12 1, 12 4 (G a. 19 47 ). L i nc ol n c l a i m s tha tM r s . N i xon ha d a duty t o di s c l os e he rhe a l th i s s ue s , a nd th a t it w o u ld n o t h a v e is s u e d th e p o lic y h a d it k n o w n th e f u ll e x te n t o f

h e rilln e s s . T o th e e x te n t th a t L in c o ln c la im s th a t M r s . N ix o n ’s f a ilu r e to a d v is e it o f

h e rh e a lth prob l em s c on st i tut ed a m at er i al m i sr epre se nt at i on absol vi ng i tof l i abi l i ty und er G a . C o d e A n n . § 3 3 - 2 4 - 7 ( b ) , it is f o ra ju ry to d e c id e w ith w h o m th e f a u lt lie s . See L i be r t y N at ’ l L i f e I ns . C o. v . H

ouk , 27 8 S . E . 2d 12 0, 12 1-22 (G a. C t . A pp . 19 81 ). 14

W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, h o w e v e r , o n N ix o n ’s c la im th a t L in c o ln w a i ve d the m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on de f e ns e by r e t a i ni ng the pr e m i um f ol l ow i ng k n o w le d g e o f

th e a lle g e d m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n . L in c o ln w a s e n title d to a r e a s o n ab le tim e to c o n d u c t a n in v e s tig a tio n in to th e c o n te s tab ility o f th e p o lic y . L in c o ln c o n d u c t e d i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d r e s c i n d e d th e p o l i c y a n d r e tu rn e d th e p r e mi u ms ap p r o x im a te ly f

o u rm o n th s a f

te rM r s . N ix o n ’s d e a th a n d o n ly w e e k s a f te rit i n t e r v i e we d Ni x o n a n d Mr s . Ni x o n ’ s h u s b a n d . I n l i g h to f th e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we c a nnotc onc l ude tha tL i nc ol n ne gl e c t e d i t s duty t o “ pr om pt l y m ove t o ha ve the contra ctof i nsurance r es ci nd ed. ” Flor i da I nt ’ l I nde m . C o. v . O sgood , 503 S . E . 2d 371, 373 ( G a . C t . A pp. 1998) ( quot i ng C ol um bi an N at ’l L i f e I ns. C o. v. Mulke

y , 91 S . E . 10 6, 10 8 (G a. 19 16 )) . A cc ordi ng l y, L i ncol n d i d n otw ai ve i t s m at er i al m i sr epre se nt at i on defe nse. F orthe r e a s ons s t a t e d above , w e va c a t e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to L in c o ln , a n d r e m a n d f o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith thi s opi ni on. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.