Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 12-1329
No. 12-1498
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00434-JRS)
Argued:
December 5, 2012
Decided:
ARGUED:
John
Tracy
Walker,
MCGUIREWOODS,
LLP,
Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Robert Barnes Delano, Jr., SANDS
ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF:
Joseph E. Blackburn, Jr., BLACKBURN, CONTE, SCHILLING & CLICK,
PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
PER CURIAM:
Banner
Life
Insurance
Company
(Banner)
filed
for
Banner
declaratory
judgment
limiting
its
obligations
For the
I.
A.
On November 30, 2010, Gary and Jacqueline met with
Banner Life Insurance agent Christopher Roberts to purchase a $1
million
meeting,
life
insurance
Gary
application
policy
completed
packet.
The
on
Garys
life.
During
three
documents
as
first
document,
labeled
part
of
Part
the
the
1,
2,
examined
medical
history;
and
the
third
document,
When
truthfully
filling
provide
out
Part
information
2,
Gary
about
his
was
required
medical
to
history.
that
his
primary
gastroenterologist.
care
physician
referred
him
to
specialist.
Jacqueline
acknowledges
that
Gary
was
of
filling
out
the
TIAA.
The
approval
of
the
life
At the
life
insurance
application
or
this
TIAA
contains
four
provision
questions
no,
presumably
read
the
at
the
submitted
the
application
packet
to
Banners
underwriting department.
Lucas,
application
reviewed
Garys
packet.
Because
Gary
unable
to
application.
requested
make
Before
that
recommendation
he
could
Roberts
gastroenterologist
of
approve
follow
referral.
up
approval
Garys
with
Roberts
for
Garys
policy,
Gary
Lucas
regarding
obliged,
and
the
informed
Lucas on January 31, 2011, that Gary did not follow up on the
referral.
On
review
medical
of
Thursday,
Garys
director.
February
application
He
3,
2011,
and
recommended
Lucas
forwarded
postponing
it
completed
to
his
Banners
approval
of
the
Sunday,
February
6,
and
Monday,
7,
before
life
insurance
policy.
On
July
5,
2011,
Banner
sent
due
to
the
misrepresentations
5
made
in
Part
of
the
application.
B.
On July 6, 2011, Banner filed a declaratory judgment
action in the district court seeking to either rescind the TIAA
or have the court declare that its obligations were limited to a
return
of
the
premium
paid
by
Gary.
Jacqueline
answered,
was
breach
of
estopped
contract
from
and
rescission,
attorneys
and
fees.
counterclaiming
At
the
for
close
of
February
15,
2012,
the
district
court
granted
2,
and
the
TIAA
formed
single
contract;
that
the
Banner Life
In a
II.
Jacqueline first argues that the district court erred
in
granting
Banners
motion
for
summary
judgment,
limiting
We
Henry v. Purnell,
TIAA
entered
into
by
Banner
and
Gary
was
an
instructs
that
any
material
misrepresentations
Banners
obligations
under
the
agreement.
Jacqueline
limiting
its
obligations
under
the
agreement
to
Mut. of
Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Echols, 154 S.E.2d 169, 172 (Va. 1967).
Materiality is assessed from the vantage point of the insurance
company and the effect of a misrepresentation on the companys
Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.
Clemmer,
79
Misrepresentations
insurer
would
F.2d
have
have
724,
been
733
(4th
considered
issued
the
Cir.
material
policy
on
1935).
when
the
different
terms, see Minn. Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 600 F. Supp.
2d
702,
709
(E.D.
Va.
2009);
or
postponed
issuing
the
policy, see Parkerson v. Fed. Home Life Ins. Co., 797 F. Supp.
1308, 1312, 1314-15 (E.D. Va. 1992).
The
evidence
on
the
record
shows
that
the
is
that
risk
an
assessment,
element
which
to
issuing
necessarily
an
insurance
depends
on
the
Lucas
tests.
As
result
of
Garys
omissions,
Banners
Medical
Banner
Therefore,
to
Garys
postpone
misrepresentations
(finding
materiality);
the
are
insurance
considered
policy.
material
issuing
that
Mut.
postponement
of
Omaha
Ins.
of
Co.,
154
decision
S.E.2d
shows
at
171-73
the
TIAA,
(same).
Jacqueline
tries
to
limit
the
terms
of
of
the
TIAA
itself.
The
TIAA
does
not
limit
any
part
of
the
application
packet. 3
Accordingly,
the
Under the
III.
Jacqueline also argues that the district court erred
in
granting
Banner
attorneys
fees
for
having
to
contest
LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 243 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
On
November
23,
2011,
Jacqueline
moved
to
compel
This
was
in
spite
of
the
fact
that
Banner
had
had
the
opportunity
to
depose
Banner
employees.
10
Banner opposed the motion, arguing that its initial answer was
sufficient and requesting costs for having to defend the motion.
In an order dated December 15, 2011, the district court denied
Jacquelines
interrogatory
motion,
was
finding
that
sufficient.
Banners
The
answer
district
court
to
the
further
fees was not clearly wrong, see Plyer v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273,
277-78 (4th Cir. 1990), the district court did not abuse its
sound discretion.
IV.
Because
the
clear
terms
of
the
TIAA
limit
Banners
attorneys
fees
was
well
within
the
district
courts
AFFIRMED.
11