Jose Ramos v. Infinity Ins. Co.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Infinity Insurance Company (“Infinity”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
Infinity had the right to rescind Jose Hernandez’s insurance policy because Hernandez concealed a material fact. Cal. Ins. Code § 331 . Infinity specifically asked Hernandez to list “[a]ll persons age 15 or older, LICENSED OR NOT, who reside with the applicant and any other drivers of the vehicle(s) on this application.” Hernandez failed to list on the application the name of his son Jose Ivan Ramos, who was 19 years old and lived with Hernandez at the time the application was submitted to Infinity. The failure to list Ramos on the insurance application was a “material” concealment. See Mitchell v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 127 Cal.App.4th 457, 476 , 25 Cal. Rptr.3d 627 (2005) (holding a concealed fact is “material” if the non-disclosed information would have an impact on the risk that the insurance company assumes and the terms under which it would issue an insurance policy).