Appeals Court Hears Arguments Over Alleged Failure to Cancel Life Insurance, Fraud and Agency Claims

The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument on an appeal arising from investments tied to Lodging/Logic Dynamics and a dispute over whether agents or advisers breached duties by failing to cancel a whole-life insurance policy.

Jefferson Gross, counsel for the appellants (Matt Green, Julian Green and MJG Investments LLC), told the panel that the central inquiry is whether the record presents a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Gross said the insurance agent failed to follow instructions to cancel a whole-life policy and as a result “the principal incurred $250,000 in debt” on two occasions, arguing that failure-to-cancel supports claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

Why it matters: the timeframe for the alleged failures—appearances in the record point to auto-renewals in July 2016 and July 2017—bears directly on statute-of-limitations defenses and whether any remaining claims are timely.

Caroline Olsen, counsel for appellee Steven Monge, disputed that a freestanding fiduciary duty arises from the insurance-agent relationship in this case and argued appellants did not adequately brief or plead several elements. Olsen cited case law and secondary authority and emphasized that the record contains evidence her client and Mr. Green agreed to delay cancellation while seeking a replacement policy, a factual account she described as “undisputed” in the briefing.

Olsen also stressed a pleading distinction: she said the complaint alleges affirmative misrepresentations rather than nondisclosure. She pointed to record testimony where the investor, Mr. Green, reportedly stated that no one affirmatively represented that earlier performance was from a pooled-fund model rather than single-property investments.

Evan Strasberg, arguing for other appellees tied to the lodging investments, framed the fraud claim under the stricter Rule 9(b) standard and told the court two of the three challenged statements are true on the record and the third lacks evidence it was ever told to Mr. Green. On reliance and document review, Strasberg argued that Mr. Green had six weeks to review the private-placement memoranda (PPM) and that Utah law supports holding a sophisticated investor to the documents he or his agent signed.

Another appellee counsel (recorded as arguing for LinkCG LLC) urged the court not to impose vicarious liability on the corporate defendant. Counsel said the claims against LinkCG are vicarious only, that Mr. Monge did not act with actual or apparent authority on behalf of LinkCG for the challenged conduct, and that LinkCG is neither a carrier nor an RIA that would be bound by an insurance agent’s acts.

Bench focus and evidentiary gaps: judges repeatedly pressed counsel on dates tied to the auto-renewals and the second cancellation request (bench questions centered on whether 2016 and 2017 acts are one continuing event for limitations purposes). The panel also queried what affirmative statements, if any, support appellants’ theory that prior investments were held in bundled funds rather than as separate-property investments; several witnesses’ deposition answers were characterized by the bench as assumptions rather than direct statements.

On the question of reasonable reliance, the court asked counsel to identify controlling authority for a theory that an investor may reasonably rely on an agent’s oral summary instead of reading the PPM; appellants argued reasonableness is a jury question while appellees emphasized longstanding authority that signatories and sophisticated investors are bound by the documents they or their authorized agents sign.

What was not decided: There was no ruling at the hearing. The presiding judge said the court would take the matter under advisement and issue an opinion. The panel adjourned after concluding argument.

Key next step: the court’s written disposition will determine whether the district court’s summary-judgment rulings are affirmed or whether any claims must proceed to trial. No oral decision was announced at the close of argument.