— as a condition precedent to coverage becoming effective under a policy — that there be no change in the insured’s health between the date of application and the date of delivery of the policy and collection of the premium.”). Here, Coops remained silent about his colon cancer diagnosis when Pruco delivered the Policy to him. It is undisputed that this information was material to Pruco’s decision to issue the Policy. Indeed, the parties have stipulated that Pruco would not have issued the Policy to Coops had it known of Coops’ colon cancer diagnosis prior to delivering the Policy. As such, the change in Coops’ health condition before the Policy was delivered constituted a failure of the express condition precedent to coverage, and the Policy did not become effective. See, e.g., id. (<HOLDING>). Contrary to plaintiffs argument, the
holding that under minnesota law an insurance policy or provision not filed with the commissioner of insurance is unenforceable recognizing that production of a written insurance policy was unnecessary to prove the existence of the policy because the proof required was proof of the fact of insurance and not of the contents of a writing holding that a policy with an excess other insurance clause provides no coverage until a policy with a pro rata other insurance clause is exhausted holding that where applicant was hospitalized with hepatic encephalopathy between time he completed insurance application and delivery of policy condition precedent was not satisfied and no insurance policy ever came into effect holding an endorsement to an existing insurance policy which added a new vehicle did not create a new contract of insurance but was merged with and became a part of the original policy