Morris v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-934,76-934
• Citation: 346 So.2d 589
• Parties: Celita Lamar MORRIS, Carlos P. Lamar, III, Claude P. Lamar and Carmen P. Lamar, Appellants, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 589

346 So.2d 589

Celita Lamar MORRIS, Carlos P. Lamar, III, Claude P. Lamar and Carmen P. Lamar, Appellants, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 76-934.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 17, 1977.

Rehearing Denied June 15, 1977.

Shaw & Segall, Miami, for appellants.

Steel, Hector & Davis and Joseph P. Klock, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

NATHAN, Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, Celita Lamar Morris, Carlos P. Lamar, III, Claude P. Lamar and Carmen P. Lamar, from an adverse summary final judgment based on an order denying their (plaintiffs') motion for costs and attorneys fees, stemming from an action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of Dr. Carlos P. Lamar.

The record reflects that Dr. Lamar was insured under a group life insurance policy issued by the defendant, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, to the Southern Medical Association. In November of 1970, Dr. Lamar executed beneficiary designations naming the plaintiffs contingent beneficiaries, and at the same time, executed an absolute assignment of the policy to his wife, Celia P. Lamar, who died in 1972. Dr. Lamar died in 1975. After his death, there arose a dispute between the plaintiffs and Connecticut General with respect to the proper beneficiaries under the policy. The plaintiffs maintained that the beneficiary designations took effect before the absolute assignment, thus entitling them to the proceeds of the policy, while Connecticut General originally took the position that the change of beneficiary was ineffective since the assignment took effect first, making the wife's estate the proper beneficiary.

In September of 1975, Connecticut General offered by letter to pay the policy proceeds to the plaintiffs as contingent beneficiaries, upon the execution by them of a release which by its terms provided that in consideration for payment, the plaintiffs will "release and hold the Company harmless for issuing payment." Again in October, the plaintiffs were advised by letter that based upon Dr. Lamar's incongruous action in designating beneficiaries and assigning the policy, Connecticut General would pay the proceeds to them upon their execution of the release.

The plaintiffs took the position that the release contained "unwarranted and unsatisfactory recitations and conditions," and refused to sign it. Suit was filed two months later, after which Connecticut General agreed to pay the policy proceeds to the plaintiffs without requiring the execution of the release.

The parties stipulated in writing that the trial court would determine the propriety of an award of attorneys fees and the amount of the award, if any. The parties also stipulated to the material facts involved in the dispute. The plaintiffs filed a motion for costs and attorneys fees. The trial judge examined the applicable law and concluded that Section 627.428, Florida Statutes (1975), has been consistently interpreted as allowing recovery of attorneys fees against an insurer only when the insurer has wrongfully withheld payment of the policy proceeds. In its order denying the motion for costs and attorneys fees, the court stated...