SOVEREIGN CAMP WOODMEN OF THE WORLD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
HOMER H. MIXON, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, MRS. A. D. MIXON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the beneficiary of an insurance certificate, holding that the contract was subject to Florida law which voids provisions limiting statutory suit periods, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding against the insurer's defense.
The court held that the certificate was subject to Florida law, which invalidates contractual provisions limiting statutory suit periods. The court also found substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict against the defendant.
“thereby making the contract subject to the laws of this State, one of which makes void any contract reducing the statutory limitations for instituting suits.”
Reasoning for why the one-year limitation defense was unavailing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe beneficiary of an insurance certificate sued for its value. The defendant company raised two defenses: that the decedent violated the certificate'…
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 Substantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
[*421] Whitfield, J.
The beneficiary of an insurance certificate brought an action thereon.
The defenses interposed were that the decedent violated the conditions of the certificate rendering it null and void, in that he violated or attempted to violate the laws of Florida by unlawfully assaulting with a deadly weapon, a person who was forced to kill decedent to protect his own life; and that the action was not brought within one year as provided in the certificate which was a contract issued under the laws of Nebraska.
The latter defense was unavailing since it appears that the certificate was delivered in Florida through the officer® of Yellow Pine Camp No. 108, located in this State, thereby making the contract subject to the laws of this State, one of which makes void any contract reducing the statutory limitations for instituting suits. See Chap. 6465, Acts 1913; American Fire Ins. Co. v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 74 Fla. 130, 77 South. Rep. 168, 250 U. S. , 39 Sup. Ct. Rep.
The first defense above referred to ivas submitted to 17ie jury and there is substantial evidence to sustain the finding adverse to the defendant company.
No material errors of law or procedure appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Purinton v. Edythe Zimmanck, 125 Fla. 815 (Fla. 1936)…imely made and presented and which motion raised every question which is presented to us. A verdict predicated on supporting evidence will not be disturbed on writ of error, no errors of law or procedure appearing. Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Mixon, 79 Fla. 420, 84 Sou. 171; Foxworth v. Maddox, 103 Fla. 32, 137 Sou. 161. So, the judgment is affirmed. Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.…
-
SUN Ins. Off. v. Clay, 319 F.2d 505 (5th Cir. 1963)…at the delivery of an insurance certificate in Florida made the contract subject to Florida law, including the statute making void contract clauses reducing the statutory limitation for bringing suits. Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World, v. Mixon, 79 Fla. 420, 84 So. 171. The inference can be urged that had the certificate been issued in a state where there was no invalidating statute, the suit clause could have been successfully interposed as a defense. The other case was decided by the United States Di…
-
Madden v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 138 F.2d 708 (5th Cir. 1943)…go to the jury on the issue of intentional or conscious fraud; and that, as to all three of the policies, Florida law governs. Brown v. Case, 80 Fla. 703, 86 So. 684; Ostroff v. New York Life Ins. Co., 9 Cir., 104 F. 2d 986; Sovereign Camp v. Mixon, 79 Fla. 420, 84 So. 171; American Fire Ins. Co. v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 74 Fla. 130, 77 So. 168. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further and not inconsistent proceedings. 5 Cir., 117 F. 2d 446, 450, decided 2-5-41. Geer v. Union Mut.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Fire Ins. Co. v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 74 Fla. 130 (Fla. 1917)
- State of Ark. v. State of Miss., 250 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1919)