Court Opinion

ID: 9471004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:23:10.965048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:14.035599
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent and would affirm the District Court. I regard the holding of the majority and its rationale as contrary to the clear language of the December 4 receipt.
I agree that under the terms of that receipt the facts establishing uninsurability must have existed as of December 4. I disagree with the majority, however, on its contention that the question is not whether those facts then existed, but whether their existence on that date had been disclosed by the medical examination requested by Republic. I find nothing in the policy or the receipt to warrant such a conclusion. It is the fact of uninsurability as of December 4 that is crucial1 and not some subjective assumption or expectation that may then have existed based on mistake of fact. The company very clearly and explicitly reserved 60 days to ascertain the truth.

. No issue of fact exists as to that. Counsel for appellant at oral argument conceded what to me seems obvious: that the malignant brain tumor which was diagnosed on December 8 existed four days earlier.