MOTORS INSURANCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JORGE MARINO & JUDITH MATEO, 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.
Motors Insurance Corporation appeals a summary judgment ruling that found it liable for denying coverage based on applicants' misrepresentations. The court reversed, holding that material misrepresentation in an insurance application is an absolute defense to enforcement of the policy, and that MIC's rejection of the application did not constitute a waiver of the misrepresentation defense.
Material misrepresentation in an insurance application is an absolute defense to enforcement of the policy regardless of whether the misrepresentation was made with knowledge of its untruth. MIC's notice was a rejection of the application, not a cancellation of a policy, and therefore MIC did not waive its misrepresentation defense by attempting to cancel under the applicable statute.
[1] A material misrepresentation in an insurance application, regardless of intent, is an absolute defense to the enforcement of the policy.
[2] An insurer's notice stating it cannot accept an insurance application, but extending coverage temporarily, constitutes a rejection of the application, not a cancellation…
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 intelligence“A material misrepresentation in an application for insurance, whether or not made with knowledge of its correctness or untruth, will nullify any policy issued and is an absolute defense to enforcement of the policy.”
Establishes the legal standard that material misrepresentation is an absolute defense under Florida law, regardless of knowledge or intent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 9, 1991, Marino and Mateo applied for car insurance with MIC, paid $166 to bind coverage, and the policy was to be immediately effective. MIC…
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 Waiver Of Right To Rescind cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Motors Insurance Corporation (hereafter “MIC”) appeals a final summary judgment in favor of appellees Marino and Mateo.
On March 9, 1991, appellees, Mateo and Marino applied for insurance with MIC to cover their new car. Appellees paid $166.00 to bind the insurance and the policy was to be effective immediately. MIC discovered that Marino’s license had been suspended and that appellees had failed to get a prein-suranee, inspection. MIC sent a notice dated March 25, 1991, to appellees stating that it could not accept the request for insurance, but would extend insurance until May 14, 1991, to allow time to find a new carrier. The car was damaged in an accident on October 14,1991. Appellees Mateo and Mar-ino filed an action against MIC for a declaratory judgment and breach of contract. Ap-pellees moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability based upon ineffective cancellation of policy for failure to comply with Florida Statute Section 627.728, and upon waiver of its right to rescind by attempting to cancel the policy under Section 627.409. The court granted summary judgment on October 21, 1992. This appeal timely followed.
Entry of summary judgment in appellees’ favor is reversible error because MIC pled a substantiated and conclusively established affirmative defense of misrepresentation in the insurance application as to the status of Mai’-ino’s license and appellees failed to rebut the defense.
A material misrepresentation in an application for insurance, whether or not made with knowledge of its correctness or untruth, will nullify any policy issued and is an absolute defense to enforcement of the policy. Fla.Stat., Section 627.409; Continental Insurance Company v. Carroll, 485 So. 2d 406, 409 (Fla.1986).
The Court erred in finding MIC had waived or was estopped from the misrepresentation defense because MIC’s notice was a rejection of application for insurance, not a cancellation of the policy. A cancellation for a material misrepresentation is a complete defense. Sauvageot v. Hanover Insurance Company, 308 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
Therefore the summary judgment for the appellees on the coverage issue is reversed with directions to enter summary judgment for the carrier. Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salgado, 22 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…s, has stated that an insurer’s denial of coverage under section 627.409 is “a viable defense even in the absence of effective cancellation.” Motors Ins. Corp. v. Woodcock, 394 So. 2d 485, 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In Motors Insurance Corp. v. Marino, 623 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), this Court held that an insurer’s failure to comply with section 627.728’s cancellation procedure did not waive the insurer’s right to rescind the policy under section 627.409. This Court found that the summary judgment entered i…
-
Armand Rappaport v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 972 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…rer’s sworn contentions that the undisclosed types of business were material and unacceptable underwriting risks, the trial court correctly granted the motion for final summary judgment. See § 627.409, Fla. Stat. (2003); Motors Ins. Corp. v. Marino, 623 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Affirmed. FLETCHER, Senior Judge, concurs. * The dissent focuses on the time sequence of application, purchase of the bus involved in the accident, and KSA Tours’ alleged verbal notification regarding the new bus and addition…
-
First Nat'l Bank Holding Co. v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 885 F. Supp. 1533 (N.D. Fla. 1995)…94 Fla.App. LEXIS 11312, *4 — 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). See also Disposable Services, Inc. v. ITT Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 453 F.2d 218 (5th Cir.1971); Life Ins. Co. v. Shifflet, 201 So.2d 715 (Fla.1967); Motors Insurance Co. v. Marino, 623 So.2d 814 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). When an insurer was induced to enter an insurance contract by fraud, the defrauded insurer may avoid the contract as of right. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Sahlen, 999 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir.1993); Continental Assurance…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Sauvageot v. The Hanover Ins. Co., 308 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)