Opinion ID: 78219
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Schoenthal's Misrepresentations Were Objectively Material.

Text: The beneficiaries argue, alternatively, that under the objective standard of a prudent insurer, genuine questions of material fact exist about the materiality of Schoenthal's misrepresentations, but this argument fails. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Schoenthal's misrepresentations were material. The issue of materiality is ordinarily a question for the jury, unless the evidence excludes every reasonable inference except that it was material, in which case it becomes a question of law for the court. Lively, 256 Ga.App. at 196, 568 S.E.2d at 100. The district court considered two kinds of evidence when it determined the materiality of Schoenthal's misrepresentations, and both establish that a prudent insurer would not have issued the policy had Schoenthal's true financial condition been disclosed. First, the district court considered the Swiss Re Underwriting Guidelines. The guidelines are used by numerous insurers and the beneficiaries described the guidelines as a model of reasonable insurance practices. Under the guidelines, Schoenthal's net worth did not warrant insurance for estate planning purposes. Second, the district court considered the uncontroverted testimony of the expert witness of American General, Skipper, that no reasonable insurance company would have issued the policy if Schoenthal's true financial condition had been known. The district court correctly concluded that Schoenthal's misrepresentations were objectively material.