Opinion ID: 2511821
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 2] Harper lists the issues as follows: 1. Is the determination of what is a material omission or misstatement in a life insurance application an issue of fact to be determined by the jury? 2. Were there genuine issues of material fact as to whether there were any material misrepresentations or omissions in [Mr. Harper's] life insurance application? 3. When [Mr. Harper's] insurance application disclosed the actual health conditions that were later determined to be the cause of his death, was it error to grant summary judgment based on allegations of his material omissions or misrepresentations as to other health conditions. 4. Whether in granting [Fidelity's] Motion for Summary Judgment, did the District Court accord to [Gail] the benefit of all reasonable inferences that could be fairly drawn from the record? 5. When [Fidelity] had notice of material medical information that differed from the information in [Joseph's] life insurance application, was it a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [Fidelity] could reasonably rely solely on the life insurance application information in issuing the life insurance policy to [Mr. Harper]? 6. Whether the application's reference to the records of [Mr. Harper's] treating physician and the authorization provided to [Fidelity] to gather [Mr. Harper's] medical records created a disputed factual issue as to whether [Fidelity] needed to review more than [Mr. Harper's] life insurance application as part of the underwriting decision? 7. Did [Fidelity] engage in post-claim underwriting? 8. Where the life insurance contract provisions at issue have been made ambiguous by the life insurance application's uncertainties, was summary judgment appropriate? Fidelity recites the issues this way: 1. Did the District Court properly conclude that there was no genuine issue of material fact on whether [Fidelity] properly rescinded [Mr. Harper's] policy of insurance pursuant to W.S. § 26-15-109? 2. Did the trial court properly conclude that [Fidelity], under the facts of this case, did not have a duty to investigate [Mr. Harper's] medical condition? 3. Did the trial court properly grant Summary Judgment on [Mrs. Harper's] claim that [Fidelity] was estopped to deny coverage under the policy? 4. Did the trial court properly grant Summary Judgment on [Mrs. Harper's] claim of the breach of good faith and fair dealing? 5. Did the trial court properly grant Summary Judgment on [Mrs. Harper's] claim that she should recover the benefits of the policy under the reasonable expectations doctrine?