Rakoff v. World Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 66--91,66--91 |
| Parties | Bernard RAKOFF, duly appointed guardian of Doris Rakoff, Appellant, v. WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation, doing business in the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Wasserman, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
Appeal by Bernard Rakoff, guardian of Doris Rakoff, from a summary final judgment for defendant, World Insurance Company.
From the admitted facts, it appears that the defendant issued both a disability benefit policy and a hospitalization policy to Doris Rakoff. She was subsequently declared incompetent because of schizophrenic reaction and committed to the South Florida Hospital, where she is still confined. She is disoriented, incoherent, and a 'complete, vegetating human being.'
Her guardian's claims for benefits under the policies were denied on the grounds that the policies provided no coverage for sickness or disability resulting from or contributed to by insanity or mental disorders.
The guardian brought suit against the insurer for damages and suffered an adverse summary final judgment from which he now appeals. He contends that the incompetent, Doris Rakoff, was suffering from a condition which was physical, or organic in nature, as opposed to a mental disorder or insanity; and that this condition therefore was not excluded under the terms of the policy.
The word 'insanity' is well known to be a legal and not a medical term. In re Pickles' Petition, Fla.App.1965, 170 So.2d 603. Though the word may have several different connotations in various applications, we are dealing here with the construction of terms of an insurance contract and are governed, therefore, by the rules set forth in Rigel v. National Casualty Company, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 285:
'We acknowledge the rules that if the language is plain and unambiguous, there is no occasion for the Court to construe it, Goldsby v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 117 Fla. 889, 158 So. 502; that if uncertainty is present, the instrument should be construed against the insurer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Cartmel, 87 Fla. 495, 100 So. 802, 35 A.L.R. 1013; that the Court should not extend strictness in construction to the point of adding a meaning to language that is clear, Bradley v. Associates Discount Corp., Fla., 58 So.2d 857;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Butler, 46143
...Co. v. Alday, 213 So.2d 13 (Fla.App.1, 1968); Continental Casualty Co. v. Borthwick, 177 So.2d 687 (Fla.App.1, 1965); Rakoff v. World Insurance Co., 191 So.2d 476 (Fla.App.3, 1966); Oren v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp., 175 So.2d 581 (Fla.App.3, 1965); Winter Garden Orname......
-
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Craton
...exists in an insurance contract, the general rule is that the doubtful term must be construed against the insurer. Rakoff v. World Insurance Co., Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 476, cert. denied, 201 So.2d 232. In the present context, such rule compels the finding that the Mutual Benefit Fund ough......
-
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Morejon, s. 75--1395
...omitted) Accord: Oren v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, 175 So.2d 581 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); Rakoff v. World Insurance Company, 191 So.2d 476 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); Winter Garden Ornamental Nursery, Inc. v. Cappleman, 201 So.2d 479 (Fla.4th DCA Florida courts adhere to the pr......
-
Valdes v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co.
...be given that meaning which it clearly expresses. Goldsby v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 117 Fla. 889, 158 So. 502 (1935); Rakoff v. World Insurance Co., Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 476; Oren v. General Accident Fire and Life Assur. Corp., Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d The issue here before us was decided by......