Court Opinion

ID: 9731559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:49:46.464618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:18.929912
License: Public Domain

POCHÉ, J., Concurring.
I concur in the decision to issue the peremptory writ, but my emphasis differs from the majority.
Disputes of this nature do not ripen into litigation until after a predictable round of preliminaries. The death of an ostensibly insured policyholder leads the ostensible beneficiary to make a claim under the policy. The insurer discovers what it believes was a material misrepresentation in the application, leading it to renounce coverage, rescind the policy, and offer the return of all premiums. The beneficiary protests, gets no satisfaction, and only then resorts to the courts. By the time this prefiling fandango is completed, both sides know that everything will come down to the issues of estoppel and waiver. These issues would be integral to a cause of action against the insurer, and therefore should have been pleaded. (See Green v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 544, 555 [230 Cal.Rptr. 13]; Lemat Corp. v. American Basketball Assn. (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 267, 275 *1608[124 Cal.Rptr. 388]; 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading, §§ 1044-1045, pp. 460-461.) Real party in interest did not do so.
In addition, real party’s position rests entirely on the supposed disparity between the answers on the application and the “Non-Smoking Declaration” that were completed by Ms. Silvera and Mr. Walthall. Real party views petitioner as either having waived its right to rescind by virtue of that disparity, or being estopped to challenge what it otherwise admits was an untruthful answer by Ms. Silvera. The undisputed evidence, however, shows that petitioner saw only the application. It also appears to a virtual certainty that the reason Walthall did not forward the separate declaration was that he was told to discontinue his practice of doing so because the declaration was pertinent only to an application for a different type of insurance. The logic of this seems compelling; why would an insurer single out this topic alone for such redundant treatment? Real party therefore strains to no real purpose in seeking to have the supposed discrepancy between the application and the unforwarded declaration imputed to petitioner.
It thus appears that petitioner’s decision to issue the policy was based on an application that included a flat-out misrepresentation. “Materiality is determined solely by the probable and reasonable effect which truthful answers would have had upon the insurer. The fact that the insurer has demanded answers to specific questions in an application for insurance is in itself usually sufficient to establish materiality as a matter of law.” (Thompson v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 904, 916 [109 Cal.Rptr. 473, 513 P.2d 353], citations omitted.) In addition to this apparent presumption arising from the language of the application, petitioner presented uncontradicted evidence that it would not have issued the policy it did had it known of the untruth.
It thus appears that the materiality of an undisputed misrepresentation was shown by petitioner as a matter of law, if not as a matter of uncontradicted evidence. The only showing from real party pertained to extraneous matters that had not been put in issue by the pleadings. In these circumstances the order denying petitioner’s motion for summary judgment cannot be sustained.
The petition of real party in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 31, 1991. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.