Opinion ID: 512864
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Coverage Pursuant to the Application

Text: The application for insurance provides: 11 The policy and insurance applied for will take effect when the policy is delivered to the Applicant and the first premium is paid in cash while the health of the Proposed Insured(s) remains as stated in this application and during their lifetime; the only exception to this is provided in the Temporary Insurance Agreement if the agreement has been issued and the advance payment required by the agreement has been made. 12 Application for Insurance Sec. 16(3) (emphasis added). The district court ruled that coverage pursuant to the application had not become effective because the parties conceded that the policy had not been issued. It is undisputed that it had not been delivered. By express terms of the application, coverage under the pending policy was not effective at the time of death. The court ruled correctly. 13 Lewis contends also that there was a ratification by the telephone call from Young to the insurer. At best, this was a statement of company approval of the insurance application. That is different from the issue of when the policy is effective which is determined by the delivery of the policy to Card. 14 We address briefly two arguments that seem to lurk in Lewis's brief, that Kansas City Life is estopped from denying coverage or it waived delivery of the policy because it conceded coverage in the telephone call with Mr. Young. Both doctrines are fact-intensive and generally not suitable for disposition on summary judgment. But to invoke either doctrine, Lewis must establish that Card relied detrimentally on the alleged representation of coverage. See Clearwater Minerals Corp. v. Presnell, 111 Idaho 945, 729 P.2d 420, 424 (Idaho Ct.App.1986) (waiver); Brand S Corp. v. King, 102 Idaho 731, 639 P.2d 429, 432 (1981) (estoppel); see also Idaho Code Sec. 41-1832. 15 Nothing in the record could support a finding of detrimental reliance. The representation was alleged to have been made after Mr. Card's death. At that time Card would have been unable to obtain alternate coverage under the TIA or with another insurer. There is no basis in the record for applying either doctrine.