Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Seabrook
| Decision Date | 11 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. II-199,II-199 |
| Citation | 366 So.2d 482 |
| Parties | The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. Bertha SEABROOK, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John D. Buchanan, Jr., of Henry, Buchanan, Mick & English, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jackson G. Beatty and W. Ralph Durrance, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellant, Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential), appeals a final judgment in favor of appellee, Bertha Seabrook, ruling that she is entitled as beneficiary to the proceeds of an insurance policy written by Prudential. We affirm.
The evidence shows that in June, 1974, Prudential issued a life insurance policy to appellee's husband (decedent), and he paid the premium for the month of June. By the terms of the policy, premiums were due on the first day of each month. It provided for a 31-day grace period during which the policy would remain in force and an overdue premium could be paid. The policy provided that if payment was not made by the end of the 31-day grace period, the policy would terminate, but that it could be reinstated if the insured signed a reinstatement form and paid all past due premiums. The reinstatement form receipt provided:
"This receipt is issued on the further condition that any check . . . be good and collectible."
The decedent failed to pay the July premium, thereby activating the 31-day grace period. When he failed to pay by August 1, the policy lapsed according to its terms. Thereafter, the company and the local agent, Mayo, contacted the insured regarding reinstatement of the policy. On August 27, 1974, decedent signed a reinstatement form and gave Mayo a check for $139.20 (the July and August premiums) to reinstate the policy. The check was sent to Prudential's Jacksonville office where decedent's account was credited by computer. Thereafter, Prudential twice presented the check for payment, and both times it was returned for insufficient funds. Prudential then bought the check back from its depository bank on September 17, and on that date, it "flagged" decedent's subaccount. An interoffice memorandum form was sent to Prudential's billing section instruction that division to "lapse the policy according to usual normal lapse rules (on) 10-1-74."
The evidence shows that Prudential's representative, Mayo, continued to contact the decedent regarding payment of the check and that finally, on September 26 or 27, decedent agreed with Mayo that decedent would give Mayo the appropriate amount of cash to honor the check on September 30. However, on September 28, decedent accidentally drowned. Unaware of the drowning, Mayo visited decedent's place of employment on September 30 to collect the cash. Mayo was then informed of the drowning. On October 1, Prudential mailed the uncancelled check back to decedent's widow, appellee,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reddick v. Globe Life and Acc. Ins. Co.
...this issue to the jury. Security Life, 202 So.2d at 909. Under an almost identical set of facts, in Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Seabrook, 366 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), we also upheld a final judgment in favor of a beneficiary under a life insurance policy. On August 1, 1974, the ......
-
Don Slack Ins., Inc. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York
...for the endorsements of "10/10/1976 to 2/26/1977," was tantamount to a reinstatement of the policy. See Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Seabrook, 366 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Fidelity's later notice to Slack attempting to cancel the policy was legally ineffective. 1 The jury also re......
-
Dusich v. Horley, 87-2281
...An insurer, by its conduct, may waive its contractual right to demand a good and collectible check. Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Seabrook, 366 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). There must also be a factual determination whether Dixie is estopped from enforcing the forfeiture prov......
-
Callaway v. Southern Life and Health Ins. Co., 88-0766
...lapse the policy and require compliance with the policy's reinstatement clause before reinsuring. See Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Seabrook, 366 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent WALDEN, J., concurs. HERSEY, C.......