OM Financial Life Insurance Company v. Hernandez

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

OM FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ROSALINA HERNANDEZ, Defendant. _______________________________/ No. C 08-3919 PJH ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment came on for hearing before this court on November 4, 2009. Plaintiff appeared by its counsel Sean P. Nalty and Shivani Nanda, and defendant appeared by her counsel Len Watkins. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendant's motion and DENIES plaintiff's motion as follows for the reasons stated at the hearing. It is undisputed that at the time he refinanced the mortgage on his home, the insured submitted an application for a term life insurance policy (a policy of mortgage insurance) to Fidelity and Guaranty Life Insurance Company, the predecessor of plaintiff OM Financial Life Insurance Company ("OM Financial"); that the policy was issued and that the insured paid the premiums for eight years; that the insured died on June 18, 2008; and that the beneficiary submitted a claim for benefits under the policy. Based on these undisputed facts, the court finds that there was a meeting of the minds between the insured and the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

insurer. Under California Insurance Code § 10113.5(a), the policy was uncontestable after a period of two years from the date of issue. The exception in § 10113.5(b)(1) does not apply, as OM Financial submitted no evidence showing that the insured presented photographic identification during the application process.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 5, 2009 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2