Deceptive Illustrations - Walker v LSW
- (p4) - BROSNAHAN: What I would like to do process wise go through each of the four principal ways in which we allege that the illustrations are deceptive and in doing so address both the common-law fraud concealment claims and the fraudulent prong of the UCL, then move on to the unfairness prong of the UCL, and then conclude with the unlawfulness prong of the UCL.
- ...failure to disclose policy costs and specifically the common-law fraudulent concealment part of that...
- Now, moving on to the UCL aspect of that claim, which we believe is governed by very different standards than the fraudulent concealment claim,
- Now, I would like to make two points about this.
- First, whether conduct or statements are likely to deceive is a question of fact.
- Now, the second point and really the larger point is that the UCL is far broader than common-law fraud in terms of the type of conduct that it prohibits. In particular, any disclosures that may have been in the policy would be insufficient to cure deception in the illustration, because under the UCL, it is sufficient if the customer is enticed into pursuing the transaction by deceptive representations at the front end of the transaction.
- California Supreme 24 Court's decision in Churn in the mid 1970s,
- last year in the Rubio versus Capital One case, which is really quite analogous to this case.
- You are not allowed to use misrepresentations and deceptive conduct to entice people.