Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Hopkins

5 Citing cases

  1. State Life Insurance Company v. O'Brien

    921 F. Supp. 420 (S.D. Miss. 1995)   Cited 2 times

    Material misrepresentations made in applying for an insurance policy give rise to a right of the insurer to rescind the policy. Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Hopkins, 788 F. Supp. 295, 301 (S.D.Miss. 1991); Mattox v. Western Fidelity Ins. Co., 694 F. Supp. 210, 214 (N.D.Miss. 1988).

  2. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y.

    822 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2016)   Cited 205 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding pollution insurance policy that covered the costs of removing a dry dock and the pollutants it produced upon sinking in navigable waters was a marine insurance contract subject to the doctrine of uberrimae fidei

    When Signal provided this information, it was required to do so in a way that was not misleading, because “[i]n making [its] underwriting decision[ ], [MSI] ha[d] the right to rely on the information supplied.” Carroll, 166 F.3d at 805 ; see also Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Hopkins, 788 F.Supp. 295, 301 (S.D.Miss.1991) (“[T]he ‘innocent misrepresentation’ standard [under Mississippi law] ... operates to the benefit of the misinformed insurance company.”); cf. Prudential, 274 So.2d at 116 (“If the applicant for insurance undertakes to make a positive statement of a fact, if it be material to the risk, such fact must be true.” (emphasis omitted) (quoting Miazza, 46 So. at 819 )).

  3. Carroll v. Metropolitan Insurance

    166 F.3d 802 (5th Cir. 1999)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing a district court's grant of summary judgment where plaintiff sufficiently proved a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether her misrepresentation was material to the insurer's risk

    Both parties dispute whether the presence of cancer contributed to Bracken's death. These arguments, however, do not affect the materiality issue because "there is no requirement under Mississippi law that the actual cause of death be related to risks concealed by an insurance applicant in order for the concealed facts to be material."Wesley, 919 F. Supp. at 234 (citing Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Hopkins, 788 F. Supp. 295, 303 (S.D. Miss. 1991)). The Beneficiaries, however, presented particularized, probative evidence to the contrary — evidence that apparently was disregarded by the district court — which we conclude raises a genuine issue of fact. Our conclusion is bolstered by the knowledge that MIAC, not the Beneficiaries, must meet the heightened clear and convincing burden of proof.

  4. Bradley v. Viking Ins. Co. of Wis.

    570 F. Supp. 3d 389 (S.D. Miss. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    See Wesley v. Union Nat. Life, 919 F. Supp. 232, 234 (S.D. Miss. 1995) (observing that "there is no requirement under Mississippi law that the actual cause of [loss] be related to risks concealed by an insurance applicant in order for the concealed facts to be material.") (citing Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Hopkins, 788 F. Supp. 295, 303 (S.D. Miss. 1991) (each misrepresentation by insured regarding physical conditions unrelated to cause of death constituted "an independent basis for rescission")); cf.; Republic Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Azlin, No. 4:10-CV-037-SA-JMV, 2012 WL 4482355, at *6 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 26, 2012) (citing Edmiston v. Schellenger, 343 So. 2d 465, 467 (Miss. 1977) ) ("Materiality is determined by reference to the time of the misrepresentation.").

  5. Wesly v. Union Nat. Life

    919 F. Supp. 232 (S.D. Miss. 1995)   Cited 15 times
    Concluding that misrepresentations regarding cocaine are material as a matter of law

    However, there is no requirement under Mississippi law that the actual cause of death be related to risks concealed by an insurance applicant in order for the concealed facts to be material. Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Hopkins, 788 F. Supp. 295, 303 (S.D.Miss. 1991) (each misrepresentation by insured regarding physical conditions unrelated to cause of death constituted "an independent basis for rescission"). . Plaintiff appears to be arguing that Wesley's death was the result of a gunshot wound and not from adverse physical effects resulting from cocaine use. Plaintiff fails to mention certain circumtances surrounding the shooting that suggest cocaine was a factor that contributed to the death of Thomas Wesley. For example, test conducted soon after his death revealed cocaine in his blood.