Ser Yang v. Western-Southern Life Assurance Co.
713 F.3d 429
8th Cir.2013Background
- Yang applied for life insurance through WSLAC in 2009; the agent recorded answers as ‘no’ to medical questions despite alleged Hepatitis B.
- Yang, who could not read English, allegedly disclosed Hepatitis B to the agent; parents claim the agent said Yang would be covered regardless.
- The agent allegedly reviewed the completed application with Yang and she signed it without reading it.
- Three weeks after application, a telephone interview with Yang was conducted in Hmong; Yang denied medical treatment in the five years prior, but a transcript was not attached to the policy.
- WSLAC issued the policy two months after application; Yang died four months after issuance; district court granted summary judgment for WSLAC; the court reversed and remanded.
- Pomerenke presumption and agent’s role in completing the application are central to whether the insurer may be liable despite unsigned or unread terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misrepresentation/omission in the application defeats coverage | Yang’s facts support concealment of Hepatitis B by insured via agent’s recording | Company relied on the signed application showing truthfulness | Genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment |
| Whether Pomerenke applies to hold insurer liable when the agent inaccurately records answers | Beneficiaries rely on Pomerenke to attribute agent’s recording to insurer | Pomerenke not dispositive given present facts | Pomerenke supports beneficiary but issues remain for trial |
| Whether the telephone conversation transcript could be used to contest the policy | Transcript shows questions asked; supports misrepresentation | Transcript is not attached to policy; policy’s contest clause prohibits use | Transcript should not have been considered; prevents using it to contest policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Pomerenke v. Farmers Life Ins. Co., 36 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 1949) (agent's incorrect recording may be insurer's responsibility; insured need not read the policy to recover)
- Hafner v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 247 N.W.2d 576 (Minn. 1933) (misrepresentations in application may lead to insurer liability if material)
- Enge v. John Hancock Mut. Life. Ins. Co., 236 N.W.207 (Minn. 1931) (agent's confirmation of recorded answers supports insurer liability when misrepresentation exists)
- Schmidt v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 251 N.W.683 (Minn. 1933) (statutory constraints on circumventing misrepresentation rules)