Opinion ID: 790605
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lapsed, forfeited, surrendered, or otherwise terminated....

Text: 37 (J.A. at 307-08 (emphasis added).) The Old Line Manual does not place a time restriction on the period in which the lapse must occur. The agent Dobben testified that the existing policies would have been allowed to lapse at the end of their terms, which is wholly consistent with the Old Line Manual definition of replacement. 38 Old Line's own Director of Underwriting (Rugel) stated that the insured's application had been answered correctly and completely. He also conceded that the insured marked the replacement box on the application because the existing policies would be replaced at the ends of their terms. Further, Rugel admitted that Old Line did not require replacement. Although Old Line did not require replacement or specify when such should occur, Rugel offered that replacement normally occurs within thirty to sixty days from the date the new policy is issued. Nevertheless, normal practice is not tantamount to a requirement or a contractual or contingent obligation. 39 That Old Line did not limit the time within which the replacement by lapsing must occur — or for that matter specify that it must occur at all — is the result of its own choices in drafting. To the extent that Old Line relied upon the insured's representations that she may replace her existing policies, it did so at its own risk. Any inducement Old Line suffered in issuing the policy to the insured was wholly a result of its chosen language by not explicitly requiring replacement of the existing policies and specifying a date certain for doing so. 40 This Court finds that the insured's statements concerning replacement were consistent with Old Line's own definitions of the term and were not misrepresentations. It was reversible error for the District Court so to find. 41