How have the courts applied the proper standard of materiality in a case where a plaintiff had a good chance of surviving in a motor vehicle accident?

Although the court's subsequent reference to a "strong chance" could suggest a deviation from the proper standard, given the court's express and repeated delineation of the correct standard, we construe the statement as mere imprecision in wording rather than a misunderstanding of the law. (See People v. Mack (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1026, 1032 [appellate court presumes trial court applied correct law].) In any event, we have independently reviewed the materiality issue under the proper standard and agree with the trial court's conclusion on this point.¹¹