AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LURLINE W. SINTROS AND STEVE S. SINTROS, APPELLEES
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.
American Bankers Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment requiring it to pay $33,333 on a life insurance policy. The insurer relied on an exclusionary clause denying coverage for deaths caused by felonies, but the court found the evidence insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute and affirmed the summary judgment for the beneficiary.
The court held that the evidence in the depositions, when considered as ultimately admissible evidence, did not create a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment against the appellant insurer.
[1] An exclusionary provision in a life insurance policy that abrogates coverage when death or injury to the insured is caused in whole or in part by the commission of a felo…
[2] Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom do not present a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude judgment.
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“Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse summary judgment for the sum of $33,333, on a life insurance policy.”
Establishes the nature of the appeal and the amount in controversy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLurline W. Sintros was the beneficiary under a life insurance policy on her son, who was killed in an automobile accident in Chattahoochee, Florida. T…
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 Inferences From Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse summary judgment for the sum of $33,333, on a life insurance policy.
Plaintiff-appellee, Lurline W. Sintros, is the beneficiary under the said policy and the natural mother of the insured who was killed in an automobile accident in Chattahoochee, Florida.
The appellant denied liability under the policy, relying upon an exclusionary provision which abrogates coverage when death or injury to the insured was caused in whole or in part by the commission of a felony by the insured, or an attempt to commit a felony.
Appellant asserts that deposition testimony before the trial court upon consideration of appellees’ motion for summary judgment raised reasonable inferences from which a jury might conclude that a contributing cause of the insured’s death was his participation in at least four felonies, among which was auto theft.
We have reviewed the record and the depositions in question and have concluded that based upon the evidence contained therein which ultimately would be admissible evidence at a trial and the inferences which might be properly drawn therefrom, no genuine issue of material fact was made to appear which would preclude the entry of summary judgment against the appellant. See, Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, Fla.1961, 131 So. 2d 730; Nash Miami Motors, Inc. v. Ellsworth, Fla.App. 1961, 129 So. 2d 704; Foremost Dairies, Inc., of the South v. Cutler, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 37; George v. Stone, Fla.App.1972, 260 So. 2d 259.
Appellant’s second point on appeal challenging an order granting the appellees’ motion to strike appellant’s petition for rehearing of summary judgment and alternatively denying the appellant’s petition for rehearing has been considered and found to be without merit.
Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Olson v. State, 705 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…by state attorneys to determine whether or not [*691] to file a sworn information are not subject to discovery by oral deposition; such discovery would require disclosure of work product and seriously impede criminal prosecutions. Eagan v. DeManio, 294 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1974). If not subject to discovery, such statements surely cannot be sought by a fishing expedition at trial, as was done in this case. The trial court erred, and was invited to do so by the defense, when it allowed the defense to call Norvill…
Authorities Cited
- Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Phoebe C. Trusell et vir, 131 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1961)
- Nash Miami Motors, Inc. v. Ellsworth, 129 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Foremost Dairies, Inc. v. Cutler, 212 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- George v. Stone, 260 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)