Opinion ID: 171865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Rescission of the Life Insurance Policy

Text: We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonprevailing party. Mullin v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 541 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir.2008). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute over any material fact, and a party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Id. (quotation omitted). Under Colorado law, to avoid a life insurance policy due to misrepresentations in the application, an insurer must prove: (1) the applicant made a false statement of fact or concealed a fact in his application for insurance; (2) the applicant knowingly made the false statement or knowingly concealed the fact; (3) the false statement of fact or the concealed fact materially affected either the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by the insurer; (4) the insurer was ignorant of the false statement of fact or concealment of fact and is not chargeable with knowledge of the fact; (5) the insurer relied, to its detriment, on the false statement of fact or concealment of fact in issuing the policy. Hollinger v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 192 Colo. 377, 560 P.2d 824, 827 (1977) (footnote omitted). Defendants contend the district court erred in concluding no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the first, second, and fourth elements of the Hollinger standard.