a) What is summary judgment?
b) Why did Farm Bureau distinguish between misfeasance - acting wrongfully - and non feasance - failing to act?
c) Did the court agree?
d) It appears that the Pehles never asked Farm Bureau why it rejected their application. If they had shown the slightest curiosity about the reason isn't it likely that they would have learned then of their HIV status?
e) This case involves a federal court applying Wyoming law and ruling on a question that the Wyoming Supreme Court has not considered. Is that appropriate?
f) Doesn't this case create a troubling precedent for life insurance companies? How can they know which medical conditions uncovered during blood work will impose on the company a duty to notify the applicant?
g) But couldn't a future plaintiff use this case as precedent if an insurance company failed to notify the plaintiff that it discovered some other serious disease during a blood test?