Rofael
Life Insurance v. Rofael
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
When a party to an insurance contract neglects to communicate that which he knows and ought to communicate, he has committed “concealment” under § 330 of the California Insurance Code. Cal. Ins. Code § 330 . Pursuant to § 332, the party must communicate to the other, in good faith, all facts within his knowledge which are or which he believes to be material to the contract. The party injured by the concealment is entitled to rescind the contract under § 331.
Victor Rofael’s (“Rofael”) role was not merely that of an agent who owed no duty of good faith disclosure to The Life Insurance Company of Virginia (“Life of Virginia”). Rofael signed the application and was the principal and named owner of the policy; Rofael did not pay a premium until the policy was delivered; and Rofael’s insurance agent made no promises about conditional coverage. Compare Harte v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co., 66 Cal.2d 148, 153 , 56 Cal.Rptr. 889 , 424 P.2d 329 (1967).
It is undisputed that Rofael knew that his father was terminally ill and concealed this fact from Life of Virginia. See Elfstrom v. New York Life Ins. Co., 67 Cal.2d 503, 514 , 63 Cal.Rptr. 35 , 432 P.2d 731 (1967).