TIM MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, FORMERLY BANKERS LIFE 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 disabled police officer sued his disability insurer for fraud and misrepresentation regarding policy coverage. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice without stated grounds, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the complaint adequately alleged fraud and that an insurer's misrepresentation of coverage can support a cause of action despite the policy terms.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that Martin's complaint sufficiently alleged all elements of fraudulent representation. An insurer's misrepresentation of insurance coverage can support a cause of action even where the terms of the policy itself appear to limit coverage, provided the insured reasonably relied on the misrepresentation to his detriment. Affirmative defenses are not properly considered on a motion to dismiss.
[1] A motion to dismiss tests whether a cause of action is stated and requires the court to look only to the four corners of the complaint, without considering affirmative de…
[2] The terms of an insurance policy do not preclude an action against an insurer or its agent for misrepresentation of coverage if the insured reasonably relied on the misre…
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“A motion to dismiss tests whether a cause of action is stated and requires the court to look only to the four corners of the complaint without considering any affirmative defenses raised by the defendant, or evidence likely to be produced by either side.”
Establishes the proper standard for evaluating motions to dismiss and that affirmative defenses should not be considered at this stage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin, a disabled police officer, purchased a disability insurance policy from Principal Insurance Company (formerly Bankers Life Company) effective …
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 Elements Of Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Martin, a disabled police officer, sued Principal Insurance Company alleging fraud and misrepresentation regarding the extent of coverage provided in a disability policy. Principal’s primary defense is that Martin has no cause of action because the coverage purchased is only that reflected in the policy. The insurer also raised several affirmative defenses including, statute of frauds, statute of limitations,1 and waiver. Without indicating any grounds, the trial court dismissed Martin’s third amended complaint with prejudice. We reverse.
A motion to dismiss tests whether a cause of action is stated and requires the court to look only to the four corners of the complaint without considering any affirmative defenses raised by the defendant, or evidence likely to be produced by either side. N.E. at W. Palm Beach, Inc. v. Horowitz, 471 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The complaint in this case sufficiently alleged all the elements of a fraudulent representation. See Assad v. Mendell, 511 So. 2d 682, 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
The terms of an insurance policy do not preclude an action against the insurer or its agent where the agent misrepresents the coverage of the insurance contract and the insured reasonably relies on the misrepresentation to his detriment. S & S Air Condit. Co. v. Freire, 555 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Reversed and remanded.
. Although the existence of a statute of limitations defense may appear from the face of a complaint, subjecting the cause to dismissal by motion, Anderson v. Emro Mkt. Co., 550 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(d), that is not the case here. It is alleged, in a complaint filed November 17, 1986, that a policy of disability insurance was issued effective April 28, 1980, through April 28, 1985, that the plaintiff was impaired on November 10, 1980, and that the defendant paid benefits under the policy for twenty-four months. There are no further pleadings as to when the defendant indicated, by words or actions, that it intended to make no further disability payments. For that reason it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the defendant knew or should have known of a cause of action prior to the expiration of the four-year statute of limitation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Karem Elena Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ts to make oral agreements not incorporated into the written contract unenforceable, does not affect oral representations which are alleged to have fraudulently induced a person to enter into the agreement.”); Martin v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(holding that where complaint alleges all elements of a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, the “terms of an insurance policy do not preclude an action against the insurer or its agent where the agent misrepresen…
-
Imogene Varnes v. Dawkins, 624 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…e complaint, the trial court may not look beyond the four’ corners of the complaint, consider any affirmative defenses raised by the defendant, nor consider any evidence likely to be produced by either side. Martin v. Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Lewis State Bank v. Travelers Ins. Co., 356 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Significantly, all material factual allegations of the complaint must be taken as true. Connolly v. Sebeco, supra; Cook v. Sheriff of Collier County, 57…
-
Warren v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 662 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…negligent misrepresentations if the insurance agency were acting as agent for Dairyland at the time of its dealings with plaintiffs and if plaintiffs detrimentally relied upon the agent’s representations. See Martin v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Plaintiffs allege the existence of an agency relationship between Dairyland and M & D Insurance in their second amended complaint. None of the exhibits attached to the complaint negate or contradict this allegation. While it may…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N.E. AT W. Palm Beach, Inc. v. Horowitz, 471 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Assad v. Mendell, 511 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Anderson v. Emro Mktg. Co., 550 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- S & S AIR Conditioning Co. v. Freire, 555 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)