Rosenberg v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 23 June 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 86-2458,86-2458 |
Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1541,510 So.2d 610 |
Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1541 Stanley ROSENBERG, M.D., Appellant, v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Mallory H. Horton, Miami, for appellant.
Shutts & Bowen and William J. Gallwey, III and Philip D. Parrish and Phillip G. Newcomm, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Stanley Rosenberg, an ophthalmologist, filed an action seeking to have declared his right to receive total disability benefits from his insurer, Guardian Life Insurance Company, for a period during which Rosenberg, although indisputably able to engage in a substantial part of the practice of his specialty (and successfully so doing), was indisputably unable to perform microsurgery. The trial court found in essence that because Rosenberg was able to perform the substantial part of his regular duties and because eye surgery was merely a nominal part of Rosenberg's practice before the onset of his disability, he was not entitled to these benefits. Rosenberg appeals.
Were this simply a matter of determining whether Rosenberg was totally disabled within the meaning of that term in the insurance policy, 1 we would have little difficulty in agreeing with the trial court that, under the cases giving meaning to that term, see, e.g., New England Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Huckins, 127 Fla. 540, 550, 173 So. 696, 700 (1937) (); Sun Life Insurance Company of America v. Evans, 340 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Lorber v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 207 So.2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Scott v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., 158 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), Rosenberg was not totally disabled and not entitled to commensurate benefits. However, it is clear that in 1982, well before the onset of any disability, Guardian, through its agent, modified the existing policy when it assured Rosenberg in a letter that he would be entitled to disability benefits even though he was "able to engage in a general or specialized medical practice which did not include the essential activities associated with a specialist in ophthalmic surgery." Under this bargained-for modification, 2 Rosenberg was entitled to benefits notwithstanding that only a small part of his practice had theretofore been devoted to ophthalmic surgery and notwithstanding that his practice flourished upon his return from the disabling illness.
Although Guardian accurately asserts that Rosenberg...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gross v. Unumprovident Life Ins. Co., CV 03-4335-SVW (PJWx).
...the language of the Paul Revere letter with a letter the insured received from the insurer's agent in Rosenberg v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 510 So.2d 610 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987). In Rosenberg, the insured was an ophthalmologist who, "although indisputably able to engage in a substantial ......
-
Groff v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.
...policies. Case law cited by Revere does not compel the entry of summary judgment in its favor.3 In Rosenberg v. Guardian Life Insurance Company, 510 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla.Dist.App. 1987), rev. denied, 520 So.2d 584 (Fla.1988), an opthamologist brought an action against an insurer seeking to r......
-
Am. Residential Equities LLC v. Saint Catherine Holdings Corp.
...1.190(b) ; Dep't of Revenue of State of Fla. v. Vanjaria Enters., Inc., 675 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ; Rosenberg v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 510 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) )).3 Given our rulings regarding the unpleaded and unnoticed issue of the lost note, we decline to address the ......
-
Kraft v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co.
...signed by the Chief Underwriter of the insurance company. In reality, the instant case is closest to Rosenberg v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 510 So.2d 610 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.,1987). In that case, the Court found that the speciality letter was not merely parol evidence, but was a "bargained-for m......