BARBARA LUBIN, APPELLANT,
v.
PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Barbara Lubin appeals a trial court judgment rescinding her disability insurance policy based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations on her application. The appellate court reversed, relying on precedent in Kaufman v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., and remanded for reinstatement of the policy and award of benefits.
The court reversed the rescission judgment and remanded the case for reinstatement of the policy and award of disability benefits to Lubin, based on controlling authority in Kaufman v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. with similar facts.
[1] An insurance policy may be rescinded due to fraudulent misrepresentations on the application.
[2] A claim for disability benefits may be denied if the disabling condition manifested prior to the effective date of the policy.
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“We have recently addressed this same issue in Kaufman v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 681 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) where we reversed a final summary judgment in favor of the insurer on a very similar set of facts.”
The court identifies controlling precedent that requires reversal of the trial court's judgment rescinding the policy.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLubin applied for disability insurance on January 5, 1990, and the policy became effective March 1, 1990. On March 28, 1993, she claimed total disabil…
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 Rescission Of Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Barbara Lubin (hereinafter “Lubin”), plaintiff below, appeals a final judgment denying her claim for total disability benefits under the Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company’s (hereinafter “Provident”) insurance policy. Lubin also appeals the trial court’s determination that Provident could lawfully rescind her insurance policy due to Lubin’s fraudulent misrepresentations on her application for the insurance policy.
On January 5, 1990, Lubin submitted her application for a disability insurance policy to Provident. The insurer approved her for coverage and issued a policy with an effective date of March 1, 1990. On March 28, 1993, Lubin submitted a claim for total disability benefits to Provident. On her claim form, she described the nature of her total disability as daily migraine headaches. Subsequent to the submission of her claim, however, on August 11, 1993, Provident denied Lubin’s claim for total disability benefits. Provident alleged that Lubin had made numerous material misrepresentations on her application for insurance and, as a result, her claim was being denied and her policy was being rescinded.
On September 14,1993, Lubin brought this cause of action seeking to recover disability benefits under the policy. Provident filed an answer and filed a two-count counterclaim seeking to rescind the policy due to Lubin’s fraudulent misrepresentations in her insurance application. Provident also sought a declaration that no benefits were payable to Lubin because there was no covered loss as her disabling condition first manifested itself prior to the effective date of the policy. The trial court bifurcated Provident’s equitable claim for rescission and Lubin’s legal claim for benefits and conducted a non-jury trial solely on Provident’s rescission claim. The trial court then found that Lubin had committed fraud in her application and entered a-final judgment for Provident on June 1,1995 thus rescinding the policy.
We have recently addressed this same issue in Kaufman v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 681 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) where we reversed a final summary judgment in favor of the insurer on a very similar set of facts. Therefore, based upon the authority of Kaufman, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the insurance policy thus allowing Lubin to recover her disability benefits under said policy.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. v. Damus, 864 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…estriction-of-benefits endorsement). In addition, the three cases the trial court relied on in granting summary judgment, Kaufman v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 681 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), Lubin v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., 681 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and DiFranco v. National Foundation Life Insurance Co., 551 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), do not require an affirmance. These cases are not disposi-tive of the issue before us. In Kaufman, the court held that an insurer could n…
-
Paul Revere Life Ins. v. McPhee, 144 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (S.D. Fla. 2001)…35 (1999). On the other hand, subsequent Florida decisions interpreting the clause required by § 627.607 arguably conflict with Forman, and have failed to even discuss that opinion. See, e.g., Lubin v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 681 So.2d 753, 753-54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). And, as Mr. McPhee correctly notes, the rule expressed in Forman is not uniformly followed. See, e.g., Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y v. Bell, 27 F.3d 1274, 1277-83 (7th Cir.1994); Galanty v. Paul Revere Li…
Authorities Cited
- Gigi C. Hubbard v. Deirdre K. Jones and Daniel B. Hubbard, 681 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Kaufman v. Mut. OF Omaha Ins. Co., 681 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)