Geronta Funding v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company

Summary

The Court held that whether premiums paid on an insurance policy void ab initio for lack of an insurable interest should be returned is governed by a fault-based restitution analysis framed by the Restatement, rather than automatic rescission and disgorgement. Because the Superior Court failed to consider whether either party had inquiry notice of the policy’s invalidity, the Court reversed and remanded the premium-entitlement ruling for reconsideration. The Court affirmed the exclusion of testimony concerning industry due-diligence standards because Geronta had refused to provide comparable testimony during discovery.