MARJORIE LEE BALDWIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, AND POWELL BROTHERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that the Chancellor's determination of the decedent's job category was supported by competent substantial evidence and would not be disturbed on appeal.
The appellant's deceased husband was insured under a group life policy with varying death benefits based on job classification. The appellant claimed …
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 Death Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
The Appellant appeals from a final decree entered in her favor by the Chancellor. Her deceased husband was insured under an Employee’s Group Life Insurance Policy issued by one of the Appellees: The Travelers Insurance Company.
The policy provided five different classes with differing amounts of death benefits for each class. Each employee’s class under the policy and the amount due his beneficiary at death was governed by his particular occupation or job category.
After the death of her husband the Appellant was tendered an amount based on job category Class V. She refused, contending her husband’s occupation brought him under Class III which paid substantially higher benefits. Issue was joined and the matter was submitted to the Chancellor who was required to determine the one factual issue. Under which class of coverage was the insurance carrier liable, or restated, what was the decedent’s job category?
Based upon the evidence the Chancellor determined the Appellant’s deceased husband was an assistant foreman and consequently covered under Class IV. The record reflects competent substantial evidence to support that determination. An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Chancellor when such evidence, even though conflicting, was presented. Painter Fertilizer Co. v. Foss, 107 Fla. 464, 145 So. 253; Board of County Comrs. v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., 63 So.2d 256.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matlack v. Artemus W. Owen and Josephine Owen, 181 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…resented. Premium Groves, Inc. v. Grand Island Citrus Cooperative, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 551. In such a case, the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor. Baldwin v. Travelers Insurance Co., Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 602. Whether a deficiency decree is granted or denied rests within the chancel [*604] lor’s discretion. Weinstein v. Park Manor Construction Co., Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 842. As a general rule, discretionary rulings should be sustained unless there is…
Authorities Cited
- Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Highlands Cnty. v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., 63 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1953)
- E. O. Painter Fertilizer Co. v. Foss, 107 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1932)