MARGARET ROBERTSON AND WILLIAM ROBERTSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
PHF LIFE 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.
Appellants challenged the dismissal of their fraud and misrepresentation claims against a life insurance company regarding the sale of credit life insurance that exceeded the loan principal. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Florida law permits such "total of payments" credit life insurance and that appellants' complaints failed to meet pleading specificity requirements.
The court held that sections 627.679(1)(a) and 627.553(3) do not conflict and permit the sale of "total of payments" credit life insurance exceeding the principal loan balance. The court also held that the trial court properly dismissed the fraud and misrepresentation claims with prejudice because appellants failed to plead fraud with the specificity required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(b).
[1] Florida law allows for the sale of "total of payments" credit life insurance, and coverage that exceeds the principal balance of a loan.
[2] Regulations promulgated by the Department of Insurance contemplate that credit life insurance coverage may exceed the unpaid principal balance of a loan and include unear…
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“sections 627.679(l)(a) and 627.553(3), Florida Statutes, do not conflict, and do allow for the sale of "total of payments" credit life insurance, or the sale of coverage which exceeds the principal balance of a loan”
Establishes the court's holding on the statutory interpretation question regarding permissible credit life insurance coverage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Margaret and William Robertson purchased credit life insurance from PHF Life Insurance Company. The insurance coverage exceeded the princip…
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 Credit Life Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order dismissing Appellants’ complaints with prejudice. Appellants raise two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding no conflict between sections 627.679(l)(a) and 627.553(3), Florida Statutes (1995), and (2) whether the trial court erred in dismissing Appellants’ fraud and misrepresentation claims with prejudice. We affirm as to both issues raised.
First, we conclude that sections 627.679(l)(a) and 627.553(3), Florida Statutes, do not conflict, and do allow for the sale of “total of payments” credit life insurance, or the sale of coverage which exceeds the principal balance of a loan. We note that the Department of Insurance, which is charged with the duty of regulating the insurance industry pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code, has developed regulations which contemplate that credit life insurance coverage may exceed the amount of the unpaid principal balance on a loan, and may include coverage for unearned interest and finance charges. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 4-163.008(3)(e) (1995). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order, finding that Florida law allows for the sale of “total of payments” credit life insurance.
Finding that Florida law allows for the sale of credit life insurance which exceeds the principal amount of a loan, the trial court dismissed Appellants’ claims of fraud and misrepresentation with prejudice. We find no error in the trial court’s dismissal of the remaining claims. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(b) requires that allegations of fraud be pled with specificity. Appellants’ complaint fails to specifically identify misrepresentations or omissions of fact, the time, place or manner in which they were made, and how the representations were false or misleading. See Myers v. Myers, 652 So. 2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Of significant importance, the dismissed complaint was the second amended complaint; that is, Appellants had the opportunity to cure the specificity defects on three separate occasions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blue Supply Corp. v. Novos Electro Mech., Inc., 990 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…eal allegations of ultimate fact showing fraud on the part of creditor); Hembd v. Dauria, 859 So. 2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (fraud must not be “flung into [a] case willy-nilly” by stating “legal conclusions”); Robertson v. PHF Life Ins. Co., 702 So. 2d 555, 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (finding that “allegations of fraud [were not] pled with specificity [and] ... complaint fails to specifically identify misrepresentations or omissions of fact, the time, place or manner in which they were made, and how the…
-
Bankers Mut. Cap. Corp. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 784 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…lse statement, the substance of the false statement, the time frame in which it was made and the context in which the statement was made. See Williams v. Bear Stearns & Co., 725 So. 2d 397, 400-01 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Robertson v. PHF Life Ins. Co., 702 So. 2d 555, 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(b), provides: In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with such particularity as the circumstances may permit. Malice, int…
-
Houri v. Mordechai Boaziz, 196 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…d DCA 2009) (“The1 factual basis for a claim of fraud must be pled with particularity and must specifically identify misrepresentations or omissions of fact, as well as time, place or manner in which they were made”); Robertson v. PHF Life Ins. Co., 702 So. 2d 555, 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(b) requires that allegations of fraud be pled with specificity” and must identify the time, place-or-manner in which the representations were made). Count XI alleging fraud in the ind…
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
- Myers v. Cardy Mae Myers, 652 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)