Deramus v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
92 F.3d 274 (1996)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
In January 1988, Frank Deramus and his wife, Jody Deramus (plaintiff), applied for life-insurance policies with Jackson National Life Insurance Company (Jackson) (defendant). Frank and Jody underwent blood and urine tests in accord with Jackson’s policy requiring such tests and denying coverage to anyone testing positive for HIV. In April 1988, the laboratory that tested Jody and Frank informed Jackson that Frank had tested positive for HIV. Jackson sent Frank a letter informing him that his application was rejected but not that the reason was a positive HIV test. Two years later, Frank tested positive for HIV. In April 1991, when Frank’s condition had deteriorated, Frank sent a letter to Jackson asking that his 1988 test results be sent to his physician. Jackson sent the results, confirming that Frank had tested positive for HIV in 1988. Frank died several days later. Jody sued Jackson on her own behalf and on behalf of Frank’s estate (plaintiff) as administratrix, alleging that Jackson had breached its duty to her and to Frank to inform them or Frank’s physician of Frank’s HIV-positive test. Specifically, Jody argued that Jackson created a confidential relationship with Jody and Frank when they demanded and retained access to confidential medical results. Jody also maintained that by requiring Jody and Frank to submit to medical tests, Jackson had assumed a duty to act reasonably and with due care. Both Jody and Jackson submitted motions for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wingate, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


