Court Opinion

ID: 9594174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:27:42.207251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:00.428120
License: Public Domain

CLABORNE, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. We must keep in mind that this is an appeal from the granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment. If there is a material fact which can be fairly disputed, then summary judgment should not be granted. See Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 802 P.2d 1000 (1990).
I believe it is absolutely wrong that the duty of processing an application for disability and life insurance within a reasonable time period should depend upon the pre-payment of a premium. This is especially troubling where the insurer provides the time period in which to process the application on the application form itself. Although I agree with the majority that no appellate court has yet held an insurer liable absent a premium payment, it may be nothing more than appellate judges suffering from a case of misocainea!
I am persuaded by the view expressed in George James Couch on Insurance 2d., Section 7:28 (Rev. ed. 1984). The clear implication in Couch is that the payment of a premium is just one of several circumstances which control the reasonableness of the insurer’s conduct. Reasonableness in this context is a jury question. See Continental Life & Acc. Co. v. Songer, 124 Ariz. 294, 303, 603 P.2d 921, 930 (App.1949). The other facts beside the payment of a premium, according to Couch, are the amount of delay in acting upon the application; the insurability of the applicant upon the submission of the application; and the applicant’s refraining from securing other like insurance because of the delay. Id. Common sense also dictates that when the insurer never demands a premium payment, prior dealings between the applicant and the insurer concerning that pay*45ment would be material in determining the issue of duty.
Not only did Songer say that liability of the insurer is not dependant “on a finding of a contract ...but it also indicated that which the majority refuses to acknowledge— the insurance industry is imbued with public interest. Id. at 304, 603 P.2d at 931.
Finally, the general policy of tort law protects an applicant who is misled by the insurer and fails to obtain insurance from another source. The record indicates that there is sufficient evidence of this fact to prevent summary judgment.
I would reverse the trial court and remand the case for further discovery and a finding by a jury, not a judge.