MAYBELLE HOFFMAN BOYD, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF VIRAJUNE EVANS KAUSEK, A/K/A VIRAJUNE G. EVANS, DECEASED, ALSO FORMERLY KNOWN AS MRS. V. G. EVANS KAUSEK AND GERRY EVANS KAUSEK, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
This case concerns whether an insurance company is relieved of liability due to the executrix's delayed notification of the insured's death. The court held that the executrix's eight-month delay in notifying the insurer constituted a breach of the insurance contract, relieving the insurer of liability.
Yes, the executrix's failure to notify the insurer until eight months after the death was a breach of the insurance contract, relieving the insurer of liability.
“The circumstances in this case were of such a nature that a reasonably prudent person would know that an accidental death might have occurred.”
Establishes the basis for the executrix's knowledge of a potential accidental death.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe executrix of an estate failed to notify the insurance company of the insured's death for approximately eight months. The circumstances surrounding…
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 Breach Of Insurance Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
The circumstances in this case were of such a nature that a reasonably prudent person would know that an accidental death might have occurred. Appellant’s failure to notify her insurer that the death had occurred, until some eight months later, was a breach of the contract of insurance that relieves the insurer of liability. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Ranson, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 175; Morton v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 618; Employers Casualty Company v. Vargas, Fla.App. 1964, 159 So.2d 875; American Fire and Casualty Company v. Collura, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So.2d 784.
There being no other material questions raised by appellant, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., ANDREWS, J., and WILLSON, J. H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LoBELLO v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…loss”). “The failure of an insured to give a timely notice of loss in contravention of a policy provision is a legal basis for the denial of recovery under the policy.” Waldrep, 400 So. 2d at 785 [*599] (citing Boyd v. Pa. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 195 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)). The question of whether an insured’s untimely reporting of loss is sufficient to result in the denial of recovery under the policy implicates a two-step analysis. See 1500 Coral Towers Condo. Ass’n v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.…
-
Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Waldrep, 400 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…r any of its authorized agents ...” The failure of an insured to give a timely notice of loss in contravention of a policy provision is a legal basis for the denial of recovery under the policy. See Boyd v. Pennsylvania National Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 195 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Although the trial judge indirectly found in Finding No. 8 (set out above) that the notice of loss was timely, and in Finding No. 9 that there was no showing of prejudice, nonetheless, the failure of an insured to give notice of…
-
Niesz v. Albright, 217 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…se by means of summary judgment. The summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Reversed. REED, J., and KING, JAMES L., Associate Judge, concur. . Boyd v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Cas. Ins. Co., Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 259; Atlantic National Ins. Co. v. Johnson, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 733; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Mills, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 190; Morton v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 618; Cf. State Farm Mutual Automo…
Authorities Cited
- Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Collura, 163 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ranson, 121 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Morton v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 137 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Emp'rs Cas. Co. v. Vargas, 159 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)