ROBERT LEE SMART, APPELLANT,
v.
TIME INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Life insurance beneficiary sued insurer for denying a $50,000 claim after the insured died of leukemia less than four months after policy issuance. The insurer defended based on material misrepresentations in the application, and the trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer, which the appellate court affirmed.
The court affirmed the summary judgment for the insurer, holding that the insured's omission of information regarding her treatment history with Dr. Jankauskas constituted a material misrepresentation that justified the insurer's denial of the claim.
[1] An insurance policy may be voided if the insured makes material misrepresentations of fact on the application for insurance.
[2] Failure to disclose material medical history, including treatment for nervousness, pain, and elevated blood pressure, constitutes a material misrepresentation on an insur…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the uncontradicted evidence shows that the insured, whose signature appears on the application, did not inform the agent of her reasons for seeing Dr. Jankauskas since 1976. It is that omitted information which constitutes the material misrepresentation that caused appellee to issue the policy.”
Establishes that the failure to disclose medical treatment history constituted material misrepresentation
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Lee Smart was the beneficiary of a $50,000 life insurance policy issued to his daughter. The insured applied for the policy and died from leuke…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rescission Of Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Robert Lee Smart, sued the appellee, Time Insurance Company, for its failure to honor his claim for benefits as beneficiary of a $50,000 life insurance policy issued to his daughter less than four months prior to her death from leukemia. Appellee defended on the ground that insured made material misrepresentations of fact on the application for insurance and that the policy would not have been issued at that time or, if issued, would have been issued at a much higher premium if insurer had known the truth. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of appellee. We affirm.
Appellee’s affirmative defense was based upon its allegations that the insured failed to disclose, as required by specific questions on the application for insurance, that she had been treated by a Dr. Jankauskas due to nervousness, pain in the upper abdomen and elevated blood pressure one day before the application was submitted. Medication was prescribed for each condition. The insured also failed to disclose, as required, that she had been seen by Dr. Jankauskas numerous times since 1976 to the date of application for nervousness, headaches and associated problems and listed a Dr. Augustus, whom she had not seen in years, as her regular physician. Dr. Jankauskas’ name does not appear anywhere on the application form, although a space was provided for the furnishing of details, dates, name and address of doctor and results of any treatment rendered.
Although the evidence indicates some dispute as to whether the application was completed and signed at the agent’s office in appellant’s presence or at the insured’s home outside appellant’s presence, or whether insured mentioned Dr. Jankauskas’ name, the uncontradicted evidence shows that the insured, whose signature appears on the application, did not inform the agent of her reasons for seeing Dr. Jankauskas since 1976. It is that omitted information which constitutes the material misrepresentation that caused appellee to issue the poli cy. Given the absence of any factual dispute as to those matters, the order of summary judgment is affirmed.
MILLS, BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
de Guerrero v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 522 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…f law. Carroll, 485 So. 2d at 409; 7 Couch on Insurance 2d, § 35:94 (rev. ed. 1985). Summary judgment for an insurer is appropriate where the insured made a material misrepresentation of fact on the application for insurance. Smart v. Time Ins. Co., 419 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). An insurer is entitled to rely on the truthfulness of an applicant’s statement of medical history and has no duty to make further inquiries. Paolasini, 489 So. 2d at 91; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Nespereira, 366 So. 2d 859 (Fla.…
-
Gonzalez v. Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co., 747 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…yes, 710 So. 2d 216, 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), and that, under the circumstances, the appellee insurer was entitled to rescind the insurance policy. See Continental Assurance Co. v. Carroll, 485 So. 2d 406, 409 (Fla.1986); Smart v. Time Insurance Co., 419 So. 2d 686, 686-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We also affirm with respect to the appellant widow’s claim that the appellee has not properly refunded the insurance premium of $3141.85. This life insurance policy was purchased through First Union National Bank of Fl…
-
Mims v. Old Line Life Ins. Co. of Am., 46 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (M.D. Fla. 1999)…nsurer from adequately estimating its risk in issuing policy); Wisconsin Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Leichter, 452 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984) (misrepresentation regarding medical history warranted summary judgment); Smart v. Time Ins. Co., 419 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (summary judgment in favor of insurer affirmed where insured failed to disclose numerous doctor visits for nervousness, headaches, and related problems and listed physician whom she had not seen in years as her regular physician)…