Strickland v. Gulf Life Insurance

1. This is a classic formal rules case in which the Georgia court doesn't want insurers to use formal rules unless the court there is a good reason to do so, as where the adjudication costs would otherwise be high and where the proxy is actually pretty good. Should courts second guess insurers about the use of formal rules in this way? Do you think courts are likely to get it right? Are there any costs to courts mistakenly denying insurers the ability to use formal rules in cases where it actually makes sense to do so?

2. On the court's reasoning is term life insurance unconscionable where an insurer is sick as the end of the term approaches: the insured is, after all, put to the gruesome choice of dying and preserving coverage or living, only to see the coverage disappear?

3. Do you see why this case is kind of like Vargas (the airplane crash)?