WILLIAM H. ROBERTS, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN H. ROBERTS, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A 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.
An estate administrator sued an insurance company seeking death benefits under an accident insurance policy. The trial court found that the insured's death resulted from a combination of the accident and pre-existing conditions, not the accident alone as required by the policy, and entered judgment for the insurance company. The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence supported the trial court's finding that the death was not caused by the accident directly and independently of other causes.
The trial court's finding that death was not caused by the accident directly and independently of other causes was supported by competent evidence, and therefore the judgment for the defendant on the death benefits claim was affirmed. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the evidence showed death would not have occurred but for the accident, because the policy required direct and independent causation.
“the death of insured was caused by automobile accident, directly and independently of any other cause”
States the policy requirement that had to be satisfied for death benefits eligibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn H. Roberts was involved in an automobile accident on December 24, 1964, and died on January 7, 1965. The attending physician's deposition and med…
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 Competent Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case suit was brought on an accident insurance policy and the question raised by the defendant was whether the death of insured was caused by automobile accident, directly and independently of any other cause. The case was tried without a jury and the primary evidence consisted of depositions of two doctors and some documentary evidence. The trial court found for the defendant as to the death benefits but entered judgment for the plaintiff as to medical payments, which were not contested by the defendant.
*60The deposition of the doctor attending the deceased, before, at and after the accident, which occurred on December 24, 1964, with death occurring on January 7, 1965, stated that in his opinion death was the result of a combination of the accident and the deceased’s other physical ailments. He did say, however, that probably the deceased would not have died on January 7, 1965, had it not been for the accident. His medical report, however, showed that the deceased was doing pretty good for 36 hours after the accident, but had the D. T.’s and finally died of a coronary artery occlusion, arteriosclerotic heart disease, preceded by an auto accident. Certain interrogatories of this doctor were offered in evidence but objection thereto was sustained by the trial court on the ground the same contradicted the deposition. This would probably have been error, but the trial court read the answers to the interrogatories and stated that even if the same were admissible, the plaintiff had failed to prove death to have come within the provisions of the policy.
The defendant’s expert witness gave his opinion based solely upon the medical report of the attending physician, the death certificate and deposition of said doctor. His conclusion was that the insured did not die directly and independently of any other cause than the accident.
The trier of the facts having made his findings, it is not within our prerogative as an appellate court to substitute our judgment therefor if there appears competent evidence to support such findings.
In this case we find there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and therefore, the judgment as entered should be and is hereby
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anglin, 306 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…any, M.D.Fla.1967, 274 F.Supp. 592, arising out of Florida, were decided for the insurance company because each of those policies contained an exclusionary clause. The opinion in Roberts v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., Fla.App. 1st, 1968, 215 So. 2d 59, does not indicate whether the policy had an exclusionary clause. Even if it did not, the outcome of the case can be explained by the fact that the appellate court affirmed a judgment in which the trier of fact had ruled in favor of the insurance co…
-
Firstamerica Dev. Corp. v. Cnty. OF Volusia, 298 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…dduced at the trial to sustain the trial judge’s findings. Under such circumstances we are not permitted to substitute our opinion for the findings of the able trial judge. (See Roberts v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., Fla.App. (1st) 1968, 215 So. 2d 59; Parker v. State, Fla.App. (1st) 1974, 295 So. 2d 312; Merritt v. Williams, Fla.App. (1st) 1974, 295 So. 2d 310; and Exchange Bank of St. Augustine v. The Florida Nat. Bank, Sup.Ct.Fla.1974, 292 So. 2d 361.) In view of the findings of the trial jud…
-
Mass. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Johansen, 270 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…t assigned to a judge’s decision has been applied to cases involving causation problems under insurance policies. Johnson v. Mutual Benefit H & A Ass’n., 125 Fla. 52, 169 So. 559; Roberts v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 59; Great American Insurance Co. v. Cornwell, Fla.App. 1966, 191 So. 2d 435; Kimbro v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Fla.App. 1959, 112 So. 2d 274. There is substantial competent evidence in the record on appeal to support the trial judge’s decision…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence