Case Name: Majiman HAFIZ; Asharfun Nisha Hafiz, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-30
Citations: 390 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 08-17398
Parties: Majiman HAFIZ; Asharfun Nisha Hafiz, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RYMER and FISHER and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 671–673

Head Matter:
Majiman HAFIZ; Asharfun Nisha Hafiz, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-17398.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 16, 2010.
Filed July 30, 2010.
Albert Gustav Stoll, Jr., Esquire, Courtney Cassinelli, Albert G. Stoll, Jr. A Law Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Michael A.S. Newman, Esquire, Royal Forest Oakes, Esquire, Barger & Wolen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: RYMER and FISHER and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs Majiman Hafiz and Asharfun Nisha Hafiz appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife). We affirm.
Under California law, "a material misrepresentation or concealment in an insurance application, whether intentional or unintentional, entitles the insurer to rescind the insurance policy ab initio." West Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 132 Cal. App.4th 181, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 323 (2005); see also Cal. Ins.Code § 331. Here, plaintiffs have failed to create a triable issue as to whether the insured, Ramdulari Sewak, misrepresented her property ownership, as reflected in her listed net worth and the stated purpose for the life insurance policies. They have provided no authority that misunderstandings based on cultural differences should negate those misrepresentations, nor have they shown that MetLife waived its right to the correct information. See Cal. Ins. Code § 336 ("The right to information of material facts may be waived, either (a) by the terms of insurance or (b) by neglect to make inquiries as to such facts, where they are distinctly implied in other facts of which information is communicated.").
Plaintiffs have also failed to create a triable issue as to whether Sewak's mis representations were material. The declaration of MetLife's underwriter was uncon-tradicted, see Wilson v. W. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 235 Cal.App.3d 981, 995-96, 1 Cal. Rptr.2d 157 (1991), and plaintiffs do not challenge materiality on appeal. In any event, although the insurance application did not require applicants to list the relevant properties and mortgage amounts, it did request information about net worth and income. Thus, Sewak's misstated net worth was material as a matter of' law. See Thompson v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal., 9 Cal.3d 904, 916, 109 Cal.Rptr. 473, 513 P.2d 353 (1973) ("The fact that the insurer has demanded answers to specific questions in an application for insurance is in itself usually sufficient to establish materiality as a matter of law.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.