assessment of his heart condition. Nor is it disputed that PHL’s willingness to insure McNeill’s life relied on medical opinion that McNeill had no heart condition. McNeill’s failure to inform PHL of the results of his April heart exam constituted a material representation in the policy application and is a sufficient ground on which to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Arkansas recognizes the common law doctrine of uberrimae fidei — which states that, as a matter of utmost good faith and fair dealing, if an applicant for insurance discovers facts that make portions of his application no longer true while the company deliberates, he must make full disclosure of the newly discovered facts. See Dodds v. Hanover Ins. Co., 317 Ark. 563, 880 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Ark.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also Stipcich v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
recognizing implied obligation to use reasonable diligence holding that an agent breaches its duty to use reasonable care and diligence in procuring insurance when it fails to provide an insurance policy that covers the contents of the insureds business as the insured had requested recognizing the doctrine as a generally accepted rule  which requires an insurance applicant to use due and reasonable diligence to disclose all facts affecting the risk which arise subsequent to the application and prior to the completion of the contract holding that inquiry notice triggers an investors duty to exercise reasonable diligence and that the  statute of limitations period begins to run once the investor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged fraud holding the better rule  on the question of the divisibility of a contract of insurance for a gross premium on several items of property separately valued  is that it depends upon the nature and entirety of the risk thus where the property is so situated that the risk of one item affects the risk on the other the contract is entire and not divisible