Burden Of Proof On Insurer

19 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Farren Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  774 So. 2d 679· Fla.· 2000-12-07 ·cited 468×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal's decision denying attorney's fees to an insured in a personal injury protection (PIP) dispute. The Court held that Allstate Insurance Company wrongfully withheld PIP benefits by unilaterally reducing a claim w
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Snite
  106 Fla. 702· Fla.· 1932-09-17 ·cited 46×
  United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company appealed a judgment against it in an automobile liability insurance coverage dispute. The insured, Nick Seoeos, had been in an accident covered by the policy, and plaintiffs obtained a $25,000 judgment against him, seeking to recover th
• Mason v. Life Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn.
  41 So. 2d 153· Fla.· 1949-06-21 ·cited 24×
  The court reviewed a case where an insurance company denied an accidental death benefit claim, arguing the insured's death was caused by intoxication. The court reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the insurer failed to prove intoxication was the direct cause of deat
• Castillo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. & State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  971 So. 2d 820· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-10-17 ·cited 23×
  The Castillos appealed a summary judgment in favor of State Farm that denied their homeowners' insurance claim for blasting-related damage. The court reversed, holding that the policy language was ambiguous regarding whether damages caused by shockwaves and vibrations without ear
• Daburlos v. Commercial Ins. Co. OF Newark
  521 F.2d 18· 3d Cir.· 1975-06-24 ·cited 18×
  Coverage must be extended because the insurer failed to prove the insureds were aware of the exclusionary provision and because the policy contains an ambiguity that must be construed against the insurer.
• Badger Mut. Ins. Co. v. Claud B. Morgan
  313 F.2d 783· 5th Cir.· 1963-02-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a significant discrepancy between the insured's proof of loss and the jury's valuation does not, as a matter of law, constitute fraud, especially when the jury specifically finds no willful misrepresentation.
• Belmont v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  721 So. 2d 436· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-12-04 ·cited 10×
  The Belmonts purchased uninsured motorist (UM) coverage from Allstate and initially elected non-stacking coverage. When Allstate later increased the bodily injury liability limits without obtaining a new written rejection of stacking, the Belmonts claimed they were entitled to st
• State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of Worcester v. Dorsey
  357 F.2d 600· 5th Cir.· 1966-03-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the decedents were not on a chartered aircraft and were traveling on a scheduled passenger service, thus falling within the exception to the aircraft exclusion clause.
• Croll v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  198 F.2d 562· 3d Cir.· 1952-07-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the question of the insured's good faith in making representations on an insurance application, particularly when a physician concealed a serious illness, should be submitted to a jury.
• Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc. v. Steck
  778 So. 2d 374· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-01-17 ·cited 7×
  Blue Cross appealed a summary judgment requiring it to pay Ms. Steck's hospital expenses despite an intoxication exclusion in her health insurance policy. The court affirmed, holding that the exclusion clause only covers direct injuries from intoxication (e.g., poisoning), not in
• First Nat'l Bank OF Minneapolis v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co.
  572 F.2d 155· 8th Cir.· 1978-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that disputed issues of fact exist regarding whether First National Bank agreed to a position secondary to prior encumbrances, precluding summary judgment.
• Palmer v. Fortune Ins. Co.
  776 So. 2d 1019· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-01-19 ·cited 5×
  Palmer, as personal representative of her deceased son's estate, sought statutory interest and attorney fees in a PIP insurance dispute against Fortune Insurance Company. The court held that Fortune's failure to pay or deny the PIP claim within 30 days of receiving written notice
• Alda Lee Souza v. Corvick
  441 F.2d 1013· D.C. Cir.· 1970-12-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for the insurer on the realty damage claim, as there was evidence that the damage to the heating plant was covered by the policy and not excluded by its terms.
• Am. Home Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Gibson
  72 So. 2d 374· Fla.· 1954-03-12 ·cited 2×
  American Home Mutual Life Insurance Co. appealed a judgment requiring it to pay death benefits under a life insurance policy, claiming the first premium was never paid. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that possession of the policy at the time of death cre
• Noble Eagle Sales, LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2024-06-04
  The court held that the term "sporting equipment" in the insurance policy's rental exclusion was ambiguous. Because the exclusion was ambiguous and the insurer failed to demonstrate it unambiguously applied, the insured was entitled to coverage, defense, and indemnity for the inc
• Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. de Caires
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-07-28
  Avatar Property and Casualty Insurance Company appeals a final judgment in favor of Maria De Caires on a first-party property insurance breach-of-contract claim following a jury trial. The trial court denied Avatar's motion for directed verdict based on De Caires' failure to intr
• Town Kitchen LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-02-26
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract or declaratory judgment because the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects did not constitute a 'direct physical loss of or damage to' the insured property as required by the all-risk insurance policy.
• Whitely v. Am. Integrity
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2018-06-25
  An insurance policy excluding losses from seepage or leakage lasting fourteen or more days does not unambiguously exclude losses occurring within the first fourteen days of exposure; whether the loss occurred within that period is a material question of fact precluding summary ju
• Transp. Ins. Co. v. Solomon David
  324 F.2d 696· 1st Cir.· 1963-12-03
  The court held that a premium payment made by the insured to the insurer's agent, even if the agent subsequently misappropriated the funds, constituted a valid payment to the insurer.