AMERICAN BANKERS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
BROWARD WILLIAMS, AS STATE TREASURER AND INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENT

Fla. 1st DCA | 1968-07-23
No. K-70
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
212 So. 2d 777 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1968) Negative Treatment
Cited by 168 cases

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.

Synopsis

American Bankers Life Assurance Company challenged the Insurance Commissioner's construction of Florida Statute Section 624.0227, which requires life insurance applications to be "taken by" a licensed agent. The court held that "taken by" does not require the agent to be physically present when the application is completed, only that the application pass through the agent before submission to the company.


Holding

The statute does not require the physical presence of an agent at the time the application is completed. The word "taken by" in its plain and ordinary meaning merely requires that applications pass through a licensed Florida agent to prevent mail-order insurance by nonadmitted insurers, not that the agent be present during completion of the application.


Key Quotes

“No life insurer shall deliver or issue for delivery in this state any policy of life insurance, * * * unless the application for such policy or contract is taken by, and the delivery of such policy or contract is made through, an insurance agent of the insurer duly licensed under the law of Florida”

The statutory language at issue requiring applications be "taken by" a licensed agent

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

American Bankers Life Assurance Company, a domestic Florida life insurer, sought to review the Insurance Commissioner's interpretation of Section 624.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
RAWLS, Judge.

RAWLS, Judge.

American Bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida, a domestic life insurance company, filed its petition for writ of certiorari to review a final order of the Insurance Commissioner construing the phrase “taken by” when used in Section 624.0227, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., as having the effect of requiring an application for a life insurance policy to be either signed in the presence of the agent or submitted to him for scrutiny in the applicant’s presence before being forwarded to the company for acceptance or rejection.

The construction of the above-mentioned statute is the only issue before this court.

Section 624.0227, Florida Statutes, F.S. A., reads as follows:

“(1) No life insurer shall deliver or issue for delivery in this state any policy of life insurance, * * * unless the application for such policy or contract is taken by, and the delivery of such policy or contract is made through, an insurance agent of the insurer duly licensed under the law of Florida, who shall re*778ceive the usual commission due to an agent from such insurer.
“(2) Each such insurer shall maintain a licensed insurance agent at all times for the purpose of and through whom policies or contracts issued or delivered in this state, shall be serviced.
“(3) This section shall not apply to policies of insurance or annuity contracts on nonresidents which are applied for outside of and delivered in the state.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The petitioner contends that the intent of the statute is to assure that all applications will pass through a licensed Florida agent and to prevent mail-order insurance written by nonadmitted insurers having no agents in Florida, but it does not require the physical presence of an agent at the time the application is completed. We agree.

In construing the above statute we are compelled to use the same rules as govern this court in construing any and all statutes. Words of common usage should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.1 The word “take” is a very general term with many definitions and without any very specific connotation. Among the most common meanings are: “to get into one's hands or into one’s possession, power or control by force or stratagem” and “to pay or get hold of with arms, hands, or fingers.” 2 Had the legislature intended the statute to import a more specific and definite meaning, it could easily have chosen words to express any limitation it wished to impose. We note that the section in question follows several others dealing with resident agents, which fact tends to support the petitioner’s view of the legislative intent. This court is without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications. To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power.

Both parties have admitted that Senate Bill 832, introduced in the 1967 Florida Legislature, proposed to amend Section 624.0227 by inserting the words “and witnessed by” following the words “taken by.” The Insurance Commissioner submits that the Bill was amended to require the application to be taken “in person by a licensed agent,” and though it was reported favorably out of committee, it was never acted upon by the Senate due to its busy calendar. The fact that the Bill was introduced supports our conclusion and serves as a reminder that the courts should never usurp legislative functions.

Certiorari is granted with directions that the portion of the Insurance Commissioner’s January 31, 1968, order, as it relates to the construction of Section 624.-0227, is quashed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (89 total)

  • Eugene Holly, M.D. v. Albert W. Auld, M.D., 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984)
    …n unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit, its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications. To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power. American Bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida v. Williams, 212 So. 2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (emphasis added). It is also true that a literal interpretation of the language of a statute need not be given when to do so would lead to an unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion. Johnson v. Presbyterian Homes of Synod of F…
  • …are “without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit, its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications.” Holly, 450 So. 2d at 219 (quoting Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co. of Fla. v. Williams, 212 So. 2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)). Thus, while petitioner is correct that section 400.023(1) should be liberally construed, such construction does not mean that this Court may rewrite the statute or ignore the words chosen by the Legislature so as to expand…
  • McLAUGHLIN v. State, 721 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1998)
    …ould extend, modify, or limit, its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications. To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power. Holly, 450 So. 2d at 219 (emphasis omitted) (quoting American Bankers Life Assurance Co. v. Williams, 212 So. 2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA1968)). Where criminal statutes are concerned, the rules are even stricter: “[I]t is a well-established canon of construction that words in a penal statute must be strictly construed. Where words are susceptible of more than one m…

Previewing 3 of 89 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw