In Salopek v. Zurich Am. Life Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46857 (D. N.M. March 18, 2020), a New Mexico district courtroom affirmed an insurer’s rescission of a person life insurance coverage coverage based mostly on materials misrepresentations within the utility relating to the insured’s historical past of alcohol and tobacco use.
The insured, a pecan farmer in New Mexico, bought the topic $15 million life coverage in August 2015 and died of colon most cancers roughly 5 months later—nicely inside the coverage’s contestability interval. Whereas investigating a declare on the coverage made by the insured’s spouse, Marcie Salopek (“Plaintiff”), Zurich American Life Insurance coverage Firm (“Zurich”) found that the insured did not disclose within the utility that he typically drank as much as 16 beers a day, used chewing tobacco, and had a historical past of most cancers. Zurich denied Plaintiff’s declare and rescinded the coverage.
Following the rescission, Plaintiff sued Zurich, alleging that Zurich had improperly rescinded the coverage and asserting causes of motion, inter alia, for breach of contract and dangerous religion. Making use of New Mexico substantive legislation, the courtroom granted Zurich abstract judgment on Plaintiff’s dangerous religion declare, however denied it as to breach of contract, discovering a factual dispute existed for a jury.
Specializing in the dangerous religion declare, the courtroom famous that underneath New Mexico legislation, a plaintiff could set up dangerous religion in two methods: both by exhibiting the insurer didn’t cope with the insured pretty in assessing a coverage declare; or by exhibiting the insured didn’t act in good religion in performing the contract. On this case, Plaintiff alleged that Zurich’s dangerous religion conduct fell into three classes: (1) allegations relating to pre-policy occasions; (2) allegations that Zurich’s denial of Plaintiff’s declare was unfounded; and (3) allegations that Zurich investigated the declare in dangerous religion.
As to the primary class (pre-policy conduct), Plaintiff argued that Zurich had an obligation to conduct a sure kind of investigation earlier than accepting the danger of insuring the applicant. The courtroom decided that Zurich had no responsibility to do an expansive investigation earlier than accepting the insured’s utility and within the absences of that responsibility, the failure to take action couldn’t be proof of dangerous religion.
As for the second class (allegations that Zurich’s denial of Plaintiff’s declare was unfounded), Plaintiff argued, inter alia, that Zurich acted in dangerous religion when it put its pursuits above hers, particularly, misrepresenting pertinent details or coverage provisions regarding the protection. Whereas not figuring out any language within the coverage that constituted a misrepresentation or any particular phrases that the insured was unaware of associated to the denial of the declare, Plaintiff’s arguments appeared to counsel that the insured didn’t perceive the incontestability clause. The courtroom held that this was inadequate to maintain a nasty religion declare as a result of the incontestability clause appeared within the coverage and nothing in New Mexico legislation required the insurer to do extra.
Nonetheless underneath the second class, Plaintiff alleged that Zurich unfairly denied her declare as a result of the denial was baseless. Plaintiff argued that the insurer’s declare evaluation was unreasonable as a result of it solely took a couple of hours, the claims reviewer didn’t think about the truth that Zurich had pre-policy details exhibiting that the insured used alcohol and tobacco considerably greater than what he represented on the applying, and that the claims reviewer “cherry picked” info, in order to obscure the truth that Zurich had info that the insured used alcohol and tobacco precisely as acknowledged on the applying. Zurich countered that it denied the declare based mostly on the coverage phrases and its investigation. The coverage specified that if any statements within the utility had been unfaithful or incomplete, then Zurich could have the precise to void the coverage. When Zurich’s investigation uncovered proof that the insured used extra alcohol and tobacco than he represented on the applying, Zurich correctly voided the coverage. Below New Mexico legislation, an insurer who fails to pay a first-party declare acts in dangerous religion solely when its causes for denying the declare are frivolous or unfounded. The courtroom discovered that there was adequate proof supporting Zurich’s actions in denying the declare.
Lastly, as for the third class (allegations that Zurich investigated Plaintiff’s declare in dangerous religion), Plaintiff alleged that Zurich frequently carried out claims investigations in dangerous religion as a result of it has “a coverage and observe of overly scrutinizing and denying life insurance coverage claims when the insured dies inside two years of acquiring protection.” The courtroom discovered, nevertheless, that there was no proof of such conduct and, extra importantly, the legislation permits an insurer to research a declare when a declare is made inside two years of the issuance of the coverage. Equally, the courtroom dismissed Plaintiff’s allegations that Zurich acted in dangerous religion when Zurich didn’t try and settle Plaintiff’s declare and took 4 months to render its declare resolution.
Accordingly, the courtroom discovered that Plaintiff had not met her burden of exhibiting adequate proof of dangerous religion and dismissed the declare.