MARIA VICTORIA SUAREZ, A WIDOW, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHLAND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Widow of a deceased insurance applicant sued Southland Life Insurance Company seeking benefits under a conditional receipt for a life insurance policy. The court affirmed dismissal of the action, holding that the conditional receipt was not binding on the insurer because the applicant was not in good health at the time of application and the company never accepted the application or issued a policy.
The conditional receipt was not binding on the insurer. The insurer never became obligated because the application was not accepted, the policy was not issued, the company's authorized officers were not satisfied the applicant was acceptable under company standards at the stated premium, the applicant was not in good health at the time of application, and the company did not waive any specified terms of the conditional receipt.
“the insurance in the sum applied for shall be in full force and effect, 'provided the duly authorized officers of the Company at its Home Office shall within their able discretion be satisfied that on said date the proposed insured was acceptable under the rules, limits and standards of the Company, for the amount and plan of insurance applied for and at the premium stated in the application'”
Establishes the conditional nature of the receipt and the company's discretion regarding acceptance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe applicant obtained a conditional receipt dated January 27, 1962, for a $10.77 deposit with an application for life insurance, naming his widow as …
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 Insurance Policy Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
The court below sustained defendant-appellee’s motion to dismiss the appellant’s complaint and from a final judgment of dismissal the plaintiff appealed. We affirm.
The action is based on a “conditional receipt” of money for life insurance which receipt was dated 1-27-62 given plaintiff’s decedent and the policy was to make the plaintiff-appellant the beneficiary. The receipt, signed by appellee-defendant’s *537agent, was for $10.77 given with the application for the insurance, which money, together with the application and. the report of a medical examiner was forwarded to the home office of the defendant-appellee. Two days later on 1-29-62 the applicant died. Thereupon the widow, the beneficiary of the proposed policy, with proof of death, made application for payment of the benefits, which was refused.-
The material portions of the conditional receipt which seem controlling provided that the money paid was to be applied toward the payment of the first premium ■“if the policy be issued as applied for and if sufficient to pay such premium in full”; that the insurance in the sum applied for ■shall be in full force and effect, “provided the duly authorized officers of the Company at its Home Office shall within their able discretion be satisfied that on said date the proposed insured was acceptable under the rules, limits and standards of the Company, for the amount and plan of insurance applied for and at the premium stated in the application”; the receipt further provided that “(7) this Receipt shall not be binding upon the Company: * * * (d) if the Proposed insured was not in good health on the date of the completion of the application, Parts 1, 2 and 2-A, which ever was the later.”
The application for insurance, an exhibit to the plaintiff’s complaint, shows that the applicant was a known diabetic since 1952 and had taken insulin daily for two years previously. Another exhibit to plaintiff’s complaint is a communication from the •Company to the soliciting agent of the Company, dated 2-6-62, as follows :
'“Please have the attached diabetic •questionaire completed by attending physician at applicants expense for minimum Table F (250%) rating. If the questionaire is completed,. please secure a home office specimen.”
It appears that the Company-appellee never became obligated since the application was not accepted; the policy was not issued; it does not appear that the duly authorized officers of the Company at its home office were satisfied that the proposed insured was acceptable at the premium stated in the application; the applicant was not in good health at the time of the application; and the Company has done nothing to waive any of the specified terms of the conditional receipt.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and WHITE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Medley Warehouses, LC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 39 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…dependent upon the fulfillment of specifically named conditions.... As with any such contractual qualifications, the conditions must be met in order for a contract of temporary insurance to exist.”). See generally Suarez v. Southland Life Ins. Co., 158 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). Because a binder is a contract of temporary insurance, it is “subject to the same rules of construction as any ordinary contract of insurance.” Couch § 13:6. Accordingly, with regard to conditions precedent contained in a binder,…
-
Campbell v. Household Life Ins. Co., 77 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…y take effect on a specified date even though the contract may be subject to acceptance of an application. See Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 145 Fla. 262, 198 So. 836 (Fla.1940); Sur [*776] rency, 537 So. 2d at 208; Suarez v. Southland Life Ins. Co., 158 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); 1A Couch on Ins. § 14:2 (A “policy is effective from the date stated, not from the date on which the premium is paid, in the absence of any mistake as to the date or of an agreement between the parties to the contrary. The date o…
-
Huff v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 1363 (11th Cir. 1982)…e carried, and many other factors, on which the medical examination has no bearing, and these factors are reserved by the company for independent investigation before the contract is accepted. Id. at 797. In Suarez v. Southland Life Insurance Co., 158 So. 2d 536 (Fla.App.1963), the same court encountered language closer to that contained in the present receipt. The receipt in Suarez required the home office to be satisfied that the “proposed insured was acceptable under the rules, limits and standards of th…