not see AB 1672 as an impediment to rescission because nothing in the statute prohibits rescission, and because the mere fact that a policy must issue does not inexorably require that a policy based on misrepresentations cannot be rescinded. See Unzueta, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d at 618 (“ ‘An intent that finds no expression in the words of the statute cannot be found to exist. The courts may not speculate that the legislature meant something other than what it said. Nor may they rewrite a statute to make it express an intention not expressed therein.’”). Thus, Security’s ability to rescind its insurance agreement with Meyling will depend entirely on federal common law. Therefore, we now turn to an analysis of that body of law. C. FEDERAL COMMON LAW and RESCISSION Under ER 6, 603-04 (E.D.Mo.1994) (<HOLDING>); Negoski v. Country Life Ins. Co., 843 F.Supp.
holding that erisa does not permit a plaintiff to assert an independent federal common law cause of action such as unjust enrichment to enforce the terms of an erisa plan thus to the extent plaintiffs third cause of action for unjust enrichment is brought pursuant to a federal common law right it must be dismissed holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans recognizing fraud in the inducement as defense under federal common law interpreting erisa holding that federal common law governs equitable remedies available under erisa recognizing federal common law right of rescission under erisa for false representations to an insurer