FLORENCE GREENBERG, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JEROME GREENBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
MANOR PINES REALTY CORPORATION ET AL., 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.
Summary judgment for the insurance companies was proper, but summary judgment for Manor Pines was improper due to a genuine issue of material fact regarding fraudulent misrepresentation.
[1] Summary judgment is properly entered when the record is devoid of anything to support a finding of insurance coverage on the basis of waiver or estoppel with respect to a…
[2] A claim based on fraudulent misrepresentation regarding insurance coverage may survive summary judgment when documentary evidence creates an inference that the decedent w…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sued her deceased husband's alleged insurers and Manor Pines, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation of insurance coverage. The deceased was …
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 Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
[*127] PER CURIAM.
Appellant brought an action in three counts. The first was against Foundation Life Insurance Company and Associated Health Plans. The second was against Manor Pines Realty Corporation. The third was against an individual not a party to this appeal.
In Count I, appellant alleged that her deceased husband had been insured by Foundation under a group policy of life insurance administered by Associated with benefits of $50,000 payable to appellant. The group policy insured employees of Man-or Pines. The depositions establish without question that at the time the group policy was issued and at all times thereafter, appellant’s husband was not an employee of Manor Pines; and that Associated was not the administrator of the life insurance policy. Further, the record is devoid of anything that would support a finding of insurance coverage on the basis of waiver or estoppel with respect to the requirement of employment. Therefore, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of Foundation and Associated.
The trial court also awarded summary judgment against appellant on her claim against Manor Pines. This claim was based on allegations that Manor Pines knew the decedent was not an employee as required by the insurance policy but fraudulently represented to the decedent that he was covered by the policy and that his beneficiary would recover death benefits of $50,-000. It was further alleged that the decedent received statements for premiums and made payments to Manor Pines. The deposition of the bookkeeper-office manager of Manor Pines confirms the allegation. The documentary evidence created the inference that the decedent was led to believe that he had insurance coverage. The testimony of the bookkeeper that she told the decedent he was not covered created a question of fact rather than dispelling the inference established by the documentary evidence. We therefore reverse the summary judgment in favor of Manor Pines and remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY, BERANEK and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Greenberg v. Manor Pines Realty Corp., 414 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…f the group life insurance plan and was not authorized to act in that capacity. On the basis of these facts the court entered a summary judgment in favor of all defendants, which on appeal, was affirmed as to the insurer and as to the administrator. 404 So. 2d 126. When the mandate went [*261] down, the trial court then awarded attorneys’ fees to the administrator, which order is the subject of this appeal. The touchstone to an award of attorneys’ fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1979), is a just…