GRACIELA C. DE GUERRERO, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
A life insurance beneficiary appeals the denial of a $200,000 life insurance claim based on the deceased's material misrepresentations in his application regarding his medical history and substance abuse. The court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, holding that the misrepresentations were material and uncontradicted, precluding recovery under Florida law.
Summary judgment for the insurer was affirmed. Material misrepresentations in an insurance application preclude recovery under the policy, even if unintentional, when they materially affect the risk or the insurer's willingness to accept that risk on the agreed terms. Where evidence of misrepresentation is clear and uncontradicted, materiality is decided as a matter of law, and summary judgment is appropriate.
[1] A misrepresentation or omission in an insurance application precludes benefits under the policy if it is material to the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by t…
[2] Even an unintentional misstatement in an insurance application will preclude recovery where the misstatement materially affects the risk or the insurer's willingness to a…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Even an unintentional misstatement in an insurance application will preclude recovery where the misstatement materially affects the risk or the insurer's willingness to accept that risk on the agreed terms.”
Establishes that intent is irrelevant; materiality alone is sufficient to preclude recovery under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJorge de Guerrero applied for a $200,000 life insurance policy from John Hancock and made several material misrepresentations on the application. When…
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 Insurer'S Duty To Investigate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The beneficiary of a life insurance policy appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the insurer. We affirm.
The deceased, Jorge de Guerrero, applied for a $200,000 life insurance policy with John Hancock. In response to a series of questions listed on the insurance application concerning his medical history, de Guerrero made several material misrepresentations. The following facts are uncon-tradicted: when asked whether he had seen a physician within the past five years de Guerrero disclosed only a check-up for insurance purposes when in truth he had several consultations with his physician who, just three weeks prior to the application for insurance, had diagnosed him as overweight and suffering from a goiter. When questioned about drug and alcohol use de Guerrero responded that he was not an alcoholic or user of drugs, when in fact he had been an active alcoholic since the age of sixteen and had been diagnosed an alcoholic by a physician from whom he sought treatment for his alcoholism, and to whom he also admitted that he used marijuana.
De Guerrero died within the two-year contestability period included in the policy.
The undisputed affidavits filed by the insurer state that had the deceased given the true facts the insurance policy would not have been issued, or would not have been issued on the same terms.
Section 627.409(1), Florida Statutes (1985), provides that a misrepresentation or omission in an insurance application precludes benefits under the policy in a number of different circumstances.1 Here, the trial court found the misrepresentations to be material and that they undisputably affected the insurer’s willingness to accept the risk or issue the policy on the same terms. Even an unintentional misstatement in an insurance application will preclude recovery where the misstatement materially affects the risk or the insurer’s willingness to accept that risk on the agreed terms. Continental Assur. Co. v. Carroll, 485 So. 2d 406 (Fla.1986); Shelby Life Ins. Co. v. Paolasini, 489 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 501 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986).
Where the evidence is clear and uncontradicted the materiality of the misrepresentation shall be decided as a question of law. Carroll, 485 So. 2d at 409; 7 Couch on Insurance 2d, § 35:94 (rev. ed. 1985). Summary judgment for an insurer is appropriate where the insured made a material misrepresentation of fact on the application for insurance. Smart v. Time Ins. Co., 419 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). An insurer is entitled to rely on the truthfulness of an applicant’s statement of medical history and has no duty to make further inquiries. Paolasini, 489 So. 2d at 91; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Nespereira, 366 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Summary judgment is affirmed.
. Section 627.409(1) provides in pertinent part:
Misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts, and incorrect statements shall not prevent a recovery under the policy or contract unless:
(a) They are fraudulent;
(b) They are material either to the acceptance of the risk or to the hazard assumed by the insurer; or (c)The insurer in good faith would either not have issued the policy or contract, would not have issued it at the same premium rate, would not have issued a policy or contract in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss, if the true facts had been made known to the insurer as required either by the application for the policy or contract or otherwise.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Kieser v. Old Line Life Ins. Co. of Am., 712 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…that he had been seen by the physicians and that, therefore, his negative answer was untruthful. The two misrepresentations already discussed provide ample support for the trial court’s decision. See de Guerrero v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 522 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (affirming a summary judgment in favor of the insurer pursuant to section 627.409 when the undisputed evidence established that the insured made several misrepresentations on his application regarding his medical history, includin…
-
Hesham Moustafa and Hala Ahmed v. Omega Ins. Co., 201 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…w of what is material.” Singer, 512 So. 2d at 1129 (discussing an earlier version of section 627.409, but concluding that materiality in this context should be based on an objective standard); see also de Guerrero v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 522 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“Where the evidence is clear and uncon-tradicted the materiality of the misrepresentation shall be decided as a question of law.”). In contrast, the determination to be made under section 627.409(1)(b) regarding how an ins…
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Decheona, 610 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…surance policy due to the husband’s deplorable driving record. Consequently, GEICO was entirely justified in voiding the subject policy. Continental Assurance Co. v. Carroll, 485 So. 2d 406 (Fla.1986); De Guerrero v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 522 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Singer v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 512 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Shelby Life Ins. Co. v. Paolasini, 489 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 501 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986). We have not overlooked GEICO’s written underw…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cont'l Assurance Co. v. Carroll, 485 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1986)
- NEW York Life Ins. Co. v. Nespereira, 366 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Shelby Life Ins. Co. v. Susanne Eckman Paolasini, 489 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Smart v. Time Ins. Co., 419 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)