Beneby v. Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1122,80-1122 |
| Parties | Wellington E. BENEBY, Appellant, v. MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Arnold R. Ginsberg, George P. Telepas, Gilmour, Morgan & Rosenblatt, Miami, for appellant.
Dixon, Dixon, Hurst, Nicklaus & Webb and H. Clay Roberts, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ., and VANN, HAROLD R. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Appellant who was beneficiary of his wife's life insurance policy, seeks reversal of a summary final judgment entered in favor of the insurer on its affirmative defense that the misrepresentations of fact, which were material to the acceptance of the risk, vitiated the policy. 1 We reverse.
The insured personally signed the application on May 3, 1976. Hospital and medical records presented in the insurer's motion for summary judgment most assuredly established the decedent as a chronically ill and disease-ridden person. The insurer's agent testified that he marked the answers with the insured who gave responses to the questions read to her from the policy which indicated she did not have a history of illness. The deposition testimony of the decedent's husband is quite to the contrary. If believed, his version was that the agent hurried through the application and the only input the insured made was to sign an unread application.
We commence our analysis of this decision by observing that the parol evidence rule does not apply to insurance applications. 18A Fla.Jur. Insurance § 1010. The trial judge was apparently led into error because this principle was not brought to his attention. Given the inapplicability of the parol evidence rule and the factual dispute before the court, it is readily apparent that summary judgment was improvidently issued. The general rule is that factual issues pertaining to misrepresentations on an application for insurance are properly within the province of the trier of fact. Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Sievert, 361 So.2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Underwriters National Assurance Company v. Harrison, 338 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). This case is similar to the factual pattern presented in Travelers Insurance Company v. Zimmerman, 309 So.2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) where we recognized that: (1) the extent of questions asked by an insurance agent; (2) the accuracy of answers given by the prospective insured; and (3) the scope of the insured's alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mims v. Old Line Life Ins. Co. of America
...naturally precludes summary judgment. Fernandez v. Bankers Nat. Life Ins. Co., 906 F.2d at 567; see also, Beneby v. Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co., 402 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981) (general rule is that "factual issues pertaining to misrepresentations on an application for insurance are......
-
Cox v. American Pioneer Life Ins. Co., 92-2115
...564 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA1990); Preferred Risk Life Ins. Co. v. Sande, 421 So.2d 566 (Fla. 5th DCA1982); Beneby v. Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co., 402 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA1981); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Zimmerman, 309 So.2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA1975). The evidence in the present case showed that ......
-
Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Candelore, 81-493
...did conclude that the alleged misrepresentation was not material. I agree with the holding in the Beneby v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, 402 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) case which says "the general rule is that factual issues pertaining to misrepresentations on an application ......
-
Patterson v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 89-3289
...3d DCA 1975). See also Preferred Risk Life Ins. Co. v. Sande, 421 So.2d 566, 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Beneby v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 402 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Therefore, the order, as it relates to the misrepresentation issue, must be reversed and the matter remanded ......