SHERRY KAY LYNN, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILADELPHIA AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., MYRTLE KING LYNN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD EARL LYNN, AND IVY EARL LYNN, 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.
Sherry Lynn appeals a judgment denying her recovery as beneficiary on two life insurance policies on her husband's life, claiming she is prohibited under Florida law from collecting due to her conviction for manslaughter in his death. The court affirms, holding that the evidence supports the trial court's finding that Lynn intentionally killed her husband, triggering the statutory prohibition on beneficiary recovery.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the greater weight of evidence demonstrates appellant's acts equate to an intentional killing of her husband, thus disqualifying her from collecting as beneficiary on the insurance policies.
[1] A beneficiary who unlawfully and intentionally kills the insured is prohibited from collecting on life insurance policies.
[2] A conviction for manslaughter, affirmed on appeal, can serve as evidence in a civil proceeding to determine if the killing was intentional.
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“she picked up a knife and plunged it into his chest, causing him to bleed to death”
Establishes the nature of appellant's actions in the fatal incident and supports the finding of intentional conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring an evening of drinking and cocaine use, Lynn and his wife appellant returned home, where an argument erupted over car keys and who would drive.…
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 Greater Weight Of The Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals the final judgment that denied her the right to collect, as the named beneficiary, on two insurance policies on her husband’s life. The trial court found, pursuant to the prohibitions of section 732.802, Florida Statutes (1987), that appellant was prohibited from collecting as beneficiary of the policies because she had unlawfully and intentionally killed her husband, Donald E. Lynn (Lynn). We affirm.
Appellant raises the question of whether the appellee insurers proved by the greater weight of the evidence that appellant intentionally killed her husband. As a result of the incident that resulted in the death of Lynn, appellant was charged with the crime of second degree murder. The jury convicted her of manslaughter, and that conviction was affirmed on appeal.
The facts surrounding the incident in which Lynn was killed show that during the day preceding his death, Lynn and appellant and other relatives had gone fishing and consumed a great deal of cocaine and alcohol. They continued drinking during the evening, and Lynn eventually passed out in his car at about midnight. When the lounge they had been visiting closed at 3:00 a.m., appellant wakened Lynn and an argument ensued about who was to drive home. Appellant eventually drove home, but upon arriving there, Lynn decided he wanted to go out again for more to drink. Appellant refused to give Lynn the car keys whereupon another argument ensued during which appellant testified Lynn struck her head, knocking her to the floor. Appellant testified that as Lynn approached her with hand raised to hit her again, she found on the coffee table an open knife with a three-and-one-half inch blade. She picked up the knife, raised it and stabbed Lynn once in the chest. Though the knife blade was only three-and-one-half inches long, it struck Lynn with sufficient force to penetrate his chest to a depth of five inches, piercing the bottom tip of his heart and ultimately causing him to bleed to death. Lynn fell backward onto a sofa. Appellant went into a bedroom and called Emergency Medical Service for an ambulance and then passed out while waiting for them to arrive. The medical examiner testified that Lynn had evidence of cocaine in his body and a blood alcohol level of .268, two-and-one-half times the legal limit for driving a motor vehicle. While appellant testified she loved Lynn and did not intend to kill him, she also testified that Lynn became very clumsy when he drank and would easily fall down if he was touched. She testified that on the night of his death, Lynn “was so drunk that he was such a little wimp, you could push him around, push him and he would be okay.” Regardless of this, the evidence shows that instead of pushing him or otherwise trying to stop Lynn’s alleged advances toward her in their home, she picked up a knife and plunged it into his chest, causing him to bleed to death.
Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 3.04(d) states:
The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force. However, if the defendant was placed in a position of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and it would have increased his own danger to retreat, then his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm was justifiable.
The supreme court in State v. Bobbitt, 415 So. 2d 724 (Fla.1982), held that the privilege not to retreat in your own home does not apply to a situation involving husband and wife who have equal rights to be in the home.
We find that the evidence of the events surrounding the incident causing Lynn’s death is sufficient to support the trial judge’s ruling that the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that appellant’s acts equate to an intentional killing of her husband.
Affirmed.
SCHEB and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Marullo, 774 F. Supp. 631 (S.D. Fla. 1991)…ed in a position of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and it would have increased her own danger to retreat, then her use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm was justifiable. Lynn v. Philadelphia American Life Ins., 543 So.2d 807, 808 (Fla.App. 2d Dist.1989); See Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 3.04(d). 13. Under Florida law, the “castle doctrine,” that is, the privilege of non-retreat in the home, does not apply where the assailant and the victim are bo…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bobbitt, 415 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1982)