Case Name: Jean LIN, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-22
Citations: 410 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 10-909-cv
Parties: Jean LIN, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 410
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
Jean LIN, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
No. 10-909-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 22, 2011.
Eric Dinnocenzo, Trief & Oik, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Tomasita L. Sherer, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Jean Lin ("plaintiff' or "Mrs. Lin") appeals from a March 30, 2009 order of the District Court granting the motion for summary judgment of defendant-appellee Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("defendant" or "MetLife"). The action involves a life insurance policy acquired by plaintiffs late husband ("Mr. Lin") which was contested by MetLife on the grounds that Mr. Lin made a material misrepresentation in the insurance application, discovered during the "contestability period." Specifically, MetLife sought rescission of the policy based upon the omission, from the original application, of the fact that plaintiffs late husband had been diagnosed and treated for hepatitis B. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.
Both parties agree that California law applies. Plaintiff argues that (1) the District Court misinterpreted the standard under California law for determining what constitutes a material misrepresentation in an application for a life insurance policy; (2) the omission of Mr. Lin's diagnosis and treatment for hepatitis B should not have been considered material to the underwriting process; and (3) there were plausible explanations for why hepatitis B was not listed by Mr. Lin on the insurance application.
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See, e.g., Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 274 (2d Cir.2009). Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c).
In its careful and well-reasoned opinion of March 30, 2009, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Lin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. 07 Civ. 3218(RJH), 2009 WL 806572 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.30, 2009), the District Court explained why the omission of Mr. Lin's hepatitis B diagnosis and treatment was a material misrepresentation under California insurance law. For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, we affirm judgment disposing of all claims.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the District Court as to all claims is AFFIRMED.