Uberrimae Fidei

24 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Frederick W.A. Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.
  804 F.2d 9· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-22 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the nondisclosure of a prior insurance policy cancellation, even if the assured believed the cancellation was based on false information, is a material fact in marine insurance, and the assured's speculation about the insurer's knowledge does not create a genu
• Gulfstream Cargo, Ltd. v. Reliance Ins. Co.
  409 F.2d 974· 5th Cir.· 1969-03-28 ·cited 44×
  Nondisclosure of known facts reflecting a vessel's spectacular unseaworthiness at the time a marine insurance policy attaches constitutes concealment that vitiates the policy.
• King v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  906 F.2d 1537· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court properly instructed the jury that federal maritime law, specifically the uberrimae fidei doctrine requiring utmost good faith in marine insurance, controlled the interpretation of the policy, even if the policy contained language suggesting
• Puritan Ins. Co. v. Eagle S.S. Co. S.A.
  779 F.2d 866· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-18 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the insured's failure to disclose material facts, including substantial losses to the IRINIO and MARIAM vessels, breached the duty of utmost good faith required in marine insurance, allowing the insurer to void the policy.
• Quintero v. Geico Marine Ins. Co.
  983 F.3d 1264· 11th Cir.· 2020-12-22 ·cited 9×
  A material misrepresentation by an insured in a marine insurance policy application, even if made during a policy reinstatement after expiration, renders the policy void ab initio under the doctrine of uberrimae fidei.
• Jackson v. Leads Diamond Corp.
  767 F. Supp. 268· S.D. Fla.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a jeweler's block insurance policy is void ab initio due to the insured's failure to disclose material facts regarding prior convictions for jewelry fraud, invoking the doctrine of Uberrimae Fidei.
• Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Giroire
  27 F. Supp. 2d 1306· S.D. Fla.· 1998-04-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the insured's material misrepresentation on a marine insurance application voids the policy ab initio under the doctrine of uberrimae fidei, and that the exclusionary clause presented a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
• Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Inst. of London Underwriters
  7 F. Supp. 2d 1340· S.D. Fla.· 1998-05-06 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Transamerica is an additional assured party under the insurance policies, not merely a loss payee, and that the policies are severable, allowing Transamerica to recover despite the insured's alleged non-disclosure.
• State Nat'l Ins. v. Anzhela Explorer, L.L.C.
  812 F. Supp. 2d 1326· S.D. Fla.· 2011-08-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the specific oral agreement for trip coverage from Florida to Louisiana superseded the written navigational limits in the policy for that voyage, and that material non-disclosure regarding watertight compartments did not void coverage.
• Blair v. Nat'l Sec. Ins. Co.
  126 F.2d 955· 3d Cir.· 1942-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions regarding concealment and materiality were appropriate for an inland marine insurance policy under New York law, and that fraud in proofs of loss requires a specific policy stipulation.
• Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC v. Morales
  760 F. Supp. 2d 1315· S.D. Fla.· 2010-12-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that material misrepresentations in the insurance application voided the marine insurance policy, and that the defendant breached his loan agreement with the bank.
• Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Inst. of London Underwriters
  338 F. Supp. 2d 1299· S.D. Fla.· 2004-09-17 ·cited 1×
  A loss payee does not have standing to sue under an insurance policy unless there is a valid assignment of rights or another applicable exception, and the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 does not apply to this property damage insurance policy.
• Accelerant Specialty Ins. Co. & Tex. Ins. Co. v. Small
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-29
  The court held that the defendant's motion to dismiss should be denied as the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded admiralty jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, venue, and stated plausible claims for breach of express warranties and declaratory relief.
• Brit UW Ltd. v. Flytec Computers, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-22
  The court held that the other underwriters of the Marine Policy are not indispensable parties under Rule 19 because the Lloyd's market structure and the policy's several liability provisions mean each underwriter's contract is distinct.
• Accelerant Specialty Ins. Co. v. Santana Mgmt., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-03
  The court held that a default judgment for declaratory relief is appropriate because the defendant made material misrepresentations in its marine insurance application, voiding the policy ab initio under the doctrine of uberrimae fidei and the policy's terms.
• Accelerant Specialty Ins. Co. v. Ballard
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-17
  The court held that the insurance policy is void due to breaches of express warranties under New York law, regardless of whether the breaches caused the loss.
• Clear Spring Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Wello & Mom, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-02-26
  Clear Spring Property and Casualty Company sought declaratory relief to void a marine insurance policy it issued to Wello and Mom, LLC after a vessel suffered a partial sinking, claiming Wello failed to disclose prior losses when renewing the policy. The court granted summary jud
• Accelerant Specialty Ins. Co. v. Buzbee Robertson, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-26
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, striking the jury trial demand but allowing amendment for certain claims.
• Liermo v. Nat'l Cas. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-05-10
  The court held that negligence and common law bad faith claims arising from an insurance policy are dismissed if they are not independent of the breach of contract claim and are governed by New York law, but a claim for breach of the duty of utmost good faith under federal mariti
• Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Subscribing to Policy No. 80901LH1827981000 v. Black Gold Marine, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-08-18
  The court granted motions to exclude expert witnesses because the deadlines for disclosure and discovery had expired, and the parties seeking to introduce the experts failed to demonstrate substantial justification or harmlessness for the delay.
• Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Lassiter
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-04-29
  Great Lakes Insurance SE sought declaratory judgment that a marine insurance policy was void because the insured, Reynolds Lassiter, violated the policy's Named Operator Warranty when an uncovered crew member helmed the vessel before it ran aground and sank. The court found that
• Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC v. Yellow Fin 36 LLC
  736 F. Supp. 2d 1302· M.D. Fla.· 2010-08-26
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether a prior vessel incident constituted a 'marine loss' and whether the vessel was in a 'locked and fenced enclosure' at the time of the alleged theft, thus denying summary judgment for both parties.
• La Reunion Francaise, S.A. v. Christy
  122 F. Supp. 2d 1325· M.D. Fla.· 1999-08-06
  The court held that the breach of a navigational limits warranty in a marine insurance policy releases the insurer from liability, even if compliance would not have prevented the loss.
• Cohen v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  166 F.2d 63· 6th Cir.· 1948-02-05
  An insured has a legal duty to disclose material health changes occurring between the application and policy delivery, even if not explicitly stipulated, to maintain the utmost good faith required in insurance contracts.