Jason A. Solarchick, a minor by v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-3143
___________
JASON A. SOLARCHICK, a minor by;
ALAN SOLARCHICK; CARLA SOLARCHICK,
his parents, his Guardians, and in
their own rights,
Appellants
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
JOHN T. DALEY; TONYA L. DALEY
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-00444)
District Judge: The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 27, 2005
Before: *NYGAARD, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed : August 31, 2005)
__________________
*Honorable Richard L. Nygaard assumed senior status on July 9, 2005

-- 1 of 3 --

1. This case is brought by Jason A. Solarchick, a minor, through his parents Alan
and Carla Solarchick, and by his parents in their own rights.
2
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellants, the Solarchicks , appeal from an order of the District Court granting1
summary judgment in favor of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company on the Solarchick’s
claims relating to MetLife’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. Guided by our recent
decision in Tran v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 408 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 2005), we
conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact, and will reverse.
Inasmuch as we are write only for the parties, we will not recapitulate the
extensive facts. At issue are four insurance policies purchased by the Solarchicks, three
of which were purchased in 1990 and one of which in 1995. The Solarchicks allege that
MetLife made various oral misrepresentations with respect to each policy. Additionally,
the Solarchicks allege that MetLife falsely represented each policy to be investment or
retirement plans rather than insurance policies.
The District Court held that the claims were time-barred. It reasoned that
Pennsylvania’s discovery rule was inapplicable because the Solarchicks failed to exercise
reasonable diligence. The Court held that the Solarchicks could not reasonably rely upon
alleged oral misrepresentations when the “plain language” of the policies “expressly

-- 2 of 3 --

contradicted” the alleged oral misrepresentations. Specifically, the District Court stated
that the Solarchicks were clearly put on notice of all of their claims, had they exercised
reasonable diligence, when the policies were issued. Accordingly, the District Court
granted MetLife’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Our recent decision in Tran, however, is contrary to the District Court’s reasoning.
In Tran, we held that the insured’s failure to read the policy did not preclude the fraud
claim. Tran, 408 F.3d at 138. We stated that summary judgment was inappropriate
because the district court’s determination that Tran could not justifiably rely on the
agent’s representations as matter of law rested almost entirely on its erroneous
conclusion that Tran had a duty to read his policy or have it read to him. Id. We reasoned
that Pennsylvania law does not impose a duty to read insurance policies when the insureds
allege fraud. Id at 136.
Following our decision in Tran, we conclude that there are genuine issues of
material fact as to whether MetLife made fraudulent misrepresentations, whether the
Solarchicks were relieved of their duty to read their policy and whether their claims are
time-barred. Therefore, we will reverse and remand to the District Court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
3

-- 3 of 3 --