BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY CO., APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERTO VADRA, 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.
Bankers Life appeals a partial summary judgment finding coverage exists under a reinstated medical insurance policy. The court affirmed, holding that the insurer's acceptance of a premium payment without issuing a conditional receipt, as required by statute and policy, resulted in automatic reinstatement of the lapsed policy.
The court held that acceptance of the premium without the conditional receipt reinstated the policy. Under the reinstatement provision of the insurance policy and Florida Statute § 627.609, if the insurer or its agent accepts a premium and requires an application for reinstatement, it must issue a conditional receipt. Bankers Life's failure to issue a conditional receipt while accepting the premium constituted acceptance without requiring an application, thus reinstating the policy.
[1] An insurance policy provision requiring an application for reinstatement upon acceptance of a premium payment is subject to statutory requirements that govern reinstateme…
[2] Acceptance and deposit of a premium payment by an insurer without issuing a conditional receipt, as required by statute and policy provisions, can result in the reinstate…
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“It is axiomatic that insurance policies, as well as the Insurance Code, will be construed in favor of the insured and insurance coverage.”
Establishes the fundamental rule of interpretation favoring the insured in insurance disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBankers Life issued a medical insurance policy to Vadra that lapsed due to nonpayment of premium. Bankers Life sent a reinstatement form requiring ret…
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 Conditional Receipt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bankers Life and Casualty Co. appeals a partial summary judgment finding that there is coverage for its insured, Alberto Vadra, under a medical insurance policy. We affirm.
Bankers Life issued a medical insurance policy to Vadra. For reasons not pertinent here, a premium payment was not timely made and after expiration of the grace period, the policy lapsed. Bankers Life sent Vadra a form on which to request reinstatement of the policy, requesting that it be returned within ten days. The form indicated, in part, that the reinstatement would be effective “on the day you [the insurer] approve this request.” The form was to be signed by the insured, representing that the insured was in good health, and was to be accompanied by a premium payment.
In early February, 1988 Vadra’s business partner delivered a premium payment to the receptionist at the Miami Bankers Life office, but did not return the form. The payment was forwarded to Bankers Life’s home office where it was deposited. During February, Vadra had a heart attack. There is a dispute as to whether the heart attack occurred before or after the payment was delivered to the Miami Bankers Life office. During February, Bankers Life sent Vadra another reinstatement form which Vadra completed and sent to Bankers Life, apparently after his heart attack.
The Bankers Life policy provided, in part:
REINSTATEMENT: If the premium isn’t paid before the grace period ends, this policy will lapse. Later acceptance of premium by us (or by an agent authorized to accept payment) without requiring an application for reinstatement will reinstate this policy. If we or our agent require an application, you’ll be given a conditional receipt for the premium. If the application is approved, this policy will be reinstated as of the approval date. Lacking such approval, this policy will be reinstated on the 45th day after the date of the conditional receipt unless we have previously notified you, in writing, of our disapproval.
(emphasis added).
The reinstatement provision of the Bankers Life policy is statutorily required. The applicable statute, subsection 627.609, Florida Statutes (1987), provided, in part:
(1) The contract shall include the following provision:
“Reinstatement: If the renewal premium is not paid before the grace period ends, the policy will lapse. Later acceptance of the premium by the insurer, or by an agent authorized to accept payment without requiring an application for reinstatement, will reinstate this policy. If the insurer or its agent requires an application, the insured will be given a conditional receipt for the premium. ...”
(Emphasis added).
The trial court concluded that, upon receiving the premium check in the home office, Bankers Life was obliged to issue a conditional receipt in order to preserve its rights under the statute and the insurance policy. The company cashed the check but did not issue a conditional receipt. Approximately one month later, Bankers Life issued a refund check and took the position that the policy had not been reinstated. The insurer then denied coverage for Va-dra’s hospitalization.
It is axiomatic that insurance policies, as well as the Insurance Code, will be construed in favor of the insured and insurance coverage. See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bird, 152 Fla. 532, 12 So. 2d 454 (1943); Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. v. Royal Marine Service Co., 456 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied sub nom. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Royal Marine Service Co., 464 So. 2d 555 (Fla.1985). The trial court correctly concluded that acceptance of the premium without the conditional receipt reinstated the policy. Bankers Life relies on such decisions as Reliance Insurance Co. v. D’Amico, 528 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) and Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Eakins, 337 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), but neither case involves the statute and policy provision at issue here.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bambi Lindheimer and Richard Lindheimer v. The ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 643 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ich will sustain coverage for the insured will be adopted. Tropical Park, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 357 So. 2d 253, 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (emphasis added; citations omitted); accord, e.g., Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Vadra, 563 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. v. Manchester, 376 So. 2d 266, 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1118 (Fla.1980). Here, the Lindheimers’ reading of the policy language is a permissible and reasonable one which sustain…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gilda Menendez, 24 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 899 So. 2d 1082, 1086 (Fla.2005) (holding that “[a]mbiguous coverage provisions are construed strictly against the insurer that drafted the policy and liberally in favor of the insured”); Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Vadra, 563 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (holding that insurance policies must be construed against the insurance company and in favor of the insured and insurance coverage). The household exclusion referred to earlier provides, in pertinent part, that there is no…
-
Bethel v. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co., 949 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ecurity National’s policy should [*223] be construed to protect Gregory against Laika’s claims. Insurance policies must be construed against the insurance company and in favor of the insured and insurance coverage. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Vadra, 563 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Rabatie v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 581 So. 2d 1327, 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). “Where the language in an insurance policy is subject to differing interpretations, the policy language ‘should be construed liberally in favor of the…
Authorities Cited
- NEW York Life Ins. Co. v. Bird, 152 Fla. 532 (Fla. 1943)
- Mut. OF Omaha Ins. Co. v. Eakins, 337 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Reliance Ins. Co. v. D'Amico, 528 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. v. Royal Marine Serv. Co., Inc., 456 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)