West v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that insured had no reasonable expectation of coverage where insurer’s communications did not misrepresent the terms and conditions of reinstatement
• explaining that “[t]he insurer cannot be arbitrary or capricious in considering the evidence of insurability provided in an application for reinstatement” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting the inconsistent Pennsylvania law on the standard of proof for insurer-defendants' affirmative defenses, and proceeding under the \clear and convincing\ standard because \it is the heavier burden\
• considering the letters between the insured and the insurer in determining the insured’s expectation
• discussing Pennsylvania law and noting “[t]o allow the insured ‘to avoid application of the clear and unambiguous policy limitations in these circumstances would [have required the Supreme Court] to rewrite the parties' written contract,’ which the court would not do.”
• “Evidence that is merely colorable or not significantly probative is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).