Opinion ID: 2511841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review/general principles

Text: The standard for summary judgment is well known: `Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court is required to resolve all facts and inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought. When opposing a motion for summary judgment, an adverse party must come forward with evidence to establish a dispute as to a material fact. In order to preclude summary judgment, the facts subject to dispute must be material to the conclusive issues in the case. On appeal, we apply the same rules and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied.' [Citation omitted.] Nelson v. Nelson, 288 Kan. 570, 578, 205 P.3d 715 (2009). Karen's arguments focus on the requirement that facts be considered in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary judgment. We will discuss the areas where Karen argues the Court of Appeals failed to apply the correct standard of review in the context of our discussion of the Court of Appeals' legal conclusions. These legal conclusions relate to the parties' competing claims regarding who is responsible for the failure to disclose Steve's diabetes (and perhaps other disqualifying health conditions) on the insurance application. The Chisms claim it was Urban's misrepresentations that caused the error and they never intended to make any representations regarding health conditions, much less a false representation. On the other hand, Protective argues Urban had no responsibility for the error and the Chisms committed fraud. As we consider these competing arguments, three general principles further define our standard of review: (1) Fraud is never presumed; (2) fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the existence of fraud is normally a question of fact. Alires v. McGehee, 277 Kan. 398, 403, 85 P.3d 1191 (2004). Protective's claims are based on the general rule of law that an insurer has the right to rescind a policy ab initio for fraudulent misrepresentation in the application process. American States Ins. Co. v. Ehrlich, 237 Kan. 449, 701 P.2d 676 (1985). To establish fraud in this context, Protective must establish: (1) There was an untrue statement of fact made by the insured or an omission of material fact, (2) the insured knew the statement was untrue, (3) the insured made the statement with the intent to deceive or recklessly with disregard for the truth, (4) the insurer justifiably relied on the statement, and (5) the false statement actually contributed to the contingency or event on which the policy is to become due and payable. See K.S.A. 40-2205(C) (imposing fifth element); Miller v. Sloan, Listrom, Eisenbarth, Sloan and Glassman, 267 Kan. 245, 260, 978 P.2d 922 (1999) (analyzing claim of fraud by silence); Waxse v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 248 Kan. 582, 586, 809 P.2d 533 (1991) (stating elements one to three as stated here but stating the fourth element as another party justifiably relied on the statement and acted to his injury and detriment); Ehrlich, 237 Kan. at 452, 701 P.2d 676 (same); Scott v. National Reserve Life Ins. Co., 143 Kan. 678, 680, 56 P.2d 76, modified on other grounds 144 Kan. 224, 58 P.2d 1131 (1936) (recognizing fraud to be a known misrepresentation or a nondisclosure). Other than the legislative refinement of the fifth element, these elements parallel those of a fraud claim generally. See Alires, 277 Kan. at 403, 85 P.3d 1191 (stating elements of fraud as an untrue statement of fact, known to be untrue by the party making it, made with the intent to deceive or with reckless disregard for the truth, upon which another party justifiably relies and acts to his or her detriment).