Opinion ID: 1138293
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Issue 2: The refusal to charge the jury on the issue of waiver.

Text: Independent Life argues that by accepting Casey's premiums after the termination date, it waived its right to terminate the policy and that that waiver was a defense to Casey's claim that it had suppressed the fact that her policy was not in effect. As discussed above, the relevant fraudulent suppression claim is that Independent Life suppressed the fact that Casey could have received a refund of her premiums, not that Independent Life suppressed the fact that Casey's policy was not in effect. The waiver defense is not pertinent to the claim that Independent Life suppressed the fact that Casey was entitled to a refund of the premiums. Thus, having determined that the evidence was sufficient to support a fraudulent suppression claim specifically, the claim that Independent Life suppressed the fact that Casey could receive a refund of her premiumswe pretermit further discussion of the waiver issue.