AMERICAN BANKERS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EILEEN TOTH, 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.
American Bankers Life Assurance Company sought to void a life insurance policy issued to Alexander Toth based on alleged misrepresentations in his application regarding prior medical consultations. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the beneficiary widow, holding that the insurer's own examination practices and failure to insist on complete answers precluded it from later denying the claim based on omissions.
The court held that the insurer cannot void the policy based on these omissions. The trial court properly placed the burden on the insurer to show material misrepresentation made in bad faith, and the insurer's own examination practices—the limited time spent, the examiner's focus on securing applications rather than thorough inquiry, and the company's failure to insist on complete answers—preclude it from denying the claim based on omissions the company did not pursue during Toth's lifetime.
“Placing the burden upon the insurer of showing material misrepresentation made in bad faith is consistent with realities. The widow or beneficiary of a policy of insurance is under an initial handicap in cases of this kind as the testimony of the insured is unavailable.”
Establishes the court's rationale for placing the burden on the insurer to prove material misrepresentation in bad faith, recognizing the practical disadvantage faced by beneficiaries who cannot obtain the deceased's testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlexander Toth, a truck driver for the City of Miami, applied for life insurance with American Bankers Life on April 12, 1962. The company's examiner …
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 Insurer'S Duty To Investigate cases and more on FLexlaw
Alexander Toth was a truck driver for the City of Miami Waste Division. He applied for a policy of insurance with American Bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida. On the following day the company’s examiner came to the home of Mr. Toth at approximately 6 P.M. in the evening. The doctor in his own handwriting completed parts 2 and 3 of the application and gave Mr. Toth a physical examination. The doctor was in the home only fifteen to thirty minutes. No one else was present at the examination, this being a requirement of the company. The doctor testified that he did not know whether Mr. Toth read the application before signing his name to it. However, the doctor found the applicant to be in good health.
In part 2 of the application, the following questions and answers thereto were given: “When did you last consult a physician or practitioner? — 1953.” “Name of physician or practitioner? — City of Miami physician.” “Have you consulted any physicians or practitioners the past five years for any other cause? — No.”
*805The examination for the insurance was conducted on April 12, 1962. Mr. Toth subsequently died of cancer which was discovered sometime after June 23, 1962. American Bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida refused to pay the policy on the basis that because of false representation the policy was void. Eileen Toth, the widow and beneficiary, brought an action on the policy and received a summary final judgment. From this judgment American Bankers Life appeals.
The fraud allegation consists of the fact that the application (1) failed to list consultations by Mr. Toth with doctors in 1958 in connection with injuries received by him in an automobile accident; (2) the fact that two weeks prior to the date of the application Mr. Toth had visited a doctor complaining of headaches, not feeling very well generally and that he had had a dizzy spell several weeks prior to the visit.
It affirmatively appears from the record that the medical consultations in 1958 were entirely for the purpose of procuring treatment for a sprain of certain muscles and ligaments which were a part of a whiplash injury.
It further appears that just prior to the date of the application for life insurance, Mr. Toth had received a physical examination. The doctor at that time told him that he was overweight, and had a slight elevation in blood pressure but no treatment was given. Mr. Toth was told that his complaints would disappear if he reduced his weight and overcame his tenseness. The appellant contends that these deficiencies in the application are sufficient to void the policy under § 627.01081, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., which is as follows:
“627.01081 Representations in applications
“All statements and descriptions in any application for an insurance policy or annuity contract, or in negotiations therefor, by or in behalf of the insured or annuitant, shall be deemed to be representations and not warranties. Misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts, and incorrect statements shall not prevent a recovery under the policy or contract unless either:
“(1) Fraudulent; or
“(2) Material either to the acceptance of the risk, or to the hazard assumed by the insurer; or
“(3) The insurer in good faith would either not have issued the policy or contract, or would not have issued it at the same premium rate, or would not have issued a policy or contract in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss, if the true facts had been made known to the insurer as required either by the application for the policy or contract or otherwise.”
The appellant also relies upon the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in Thompson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 143 Fla. 534, 197 So. 111. It is urged that under the statute above quoted and the holding in the cited case that:
“Materiality of a fact, in insurance law, is subjective. It concerns rather the impression which the fact claimed to be material would reasonably and naturally convey to the insurer’s mind before the event, and at the time the insurance is effected, than the subsequent actual casual connection between the fact, or the probable cause it evidences, and the event.”
We do not think this question is reached in this case because of the holding of the trial judge as follows:
“Placing the burden upon the insurer of showing material misrepresentation made in bad faith is consistent with realities. The widow or beneficiary of a policy of insurance is under an initial handicap in cases of this kind as the *806testimony of the insured is unavailable. As evidenced by the facts in this case, the emphasis of the companies’ agents is usually upon securing the application, not rejecting it. The companies’ examiner, at the close of a day’s practice, may be more concerned with completing an examination than with giving a thorough and complete clinical and historical account. Moreover, they are instructed that nobody else may be present during the examination. A look at Parts I and II of the application reveals that the companies’ inquiry of an applicant, not trained in medicine, is so extensive as to be very difficult of answering in full. Moreover, it appears that the company did not insist upon full and complete answers, as indeed it would be difficult. Nor was the time taken by the company’s agents sufficient to afford the time required to complete the literal requirements of the application.”
The Supreme Court of Florida long ago ruled that an insurer should be barred from requiring more precise disclosures about the insured after his death than was sought in his lifetime. In Fisher v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co., 97 Fla. 512, 121 So. 799, physicians had advised the applicant to have an operation based upon their opinion that he had an ulcer. When asked about his illnesses, diseases, and operations since childhood, he answered that he had never had a doctor in his.life. In reversing' a decree, cancelling a policy of insurance for misrepresentation, the court held:
“The insurance company had the right to require a full and complete answer to the questions propounded in the application, and if it waived this right by accepting the application containing the answers which were not responsive to the questions propounded, it could not complain that it did not receive information to which it was entitled.”
See also cases collected at 29 Am.Jur., Insurance, § 1075, n. 9.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Life Ins. Co. OF Va. v. Leroy J. Shifflet de bonis non of the Estate of Florence I. Shifflet, 201 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1967)…on in answered in the negative. DREW, O’CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur. THORNAL, C. J., dissents. . 359 F. 2d 501 (C.C.A.5th 1966). . Lamm v. Prudential Ins. Co., 179 So. 2d 238 (Fla.App.3rd 1965). . American Bankers Life Assurance Co. v. Toth, 165 So. 2d 804 (Fla.App.3rd 1964), cert. den. 169 So. 2d 389 (Fla.1964). . Douglas v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 191 So. 2d 483 (Fla.App.2d 1966). . Life Insurance Co. of Va. v. Shifflet, 359 F. 2d 501 (5 Cir. 1966). . Douglas v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 191 So. 2d 483…
-
Douglas v. The Mut. Life Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 191 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…e quoted section should control the outcome of this decision, but we will review other cases to determine whether other Florida courts have passed directly upon the issue before us. American Bankers Life Assurance Co. of Fla. v. Toth, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 804, cited by appellant, explicitly never reached an interpretation of the questioned statute. Summary judgment, upon a life insurance policy for the beneficiary, was affirmed not [*485] because the insured knowingly and erroneously answered questions o…
-
Shelby Life Ins. Co. v. Susanne Eckman Paolasini, 489 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…, was apparently filled in by Shelby’s agent, Jeffrey Caminiti, who told the insured merely to give the doctor’s name and that “if they needed to, [Shelby] would check ... with the doctor’s records.”3 See American Bankers Life Assurance Co. v. Toth, 165 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 169 So. 2d 389 (Fla.1964). The insurmountable difficulty [*91] with this position is that the agent’s advice to this effect was based upon a description of his health by Paolasini which omitted material facts about…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maude Thompson v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 143 Fla. 534 (Fla. 1940)
- Leltory E. Bruce Fisher v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co., 97 Fla. 512 (Fla. 1929)