SOVEREIGN CAMP WOODMEN OF THE WORLD
v.
ALEAN WILLIAMS
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the beneficiary of a life insurance policy with double indemnity provisions, holding that the insurance company failed to prove its affirmative defense that the beneficiary was an accessory to her husband's murder.
The court held that the insurance company failed to prove its affirmative defense that the beneficiary was accessory to the murder, and therefore the beneficiary was entitled to recover under the policy. The failure of proof on the affirmative defense was fatal to the defendant's case regardless of other alleged errors.
“It is not denied that he was murdered in his own home but there is a complete failure in the proof to connect defendant in error with the murder. It matters not what else was proven or what othér error may have been committed; if there was failure on this point the case falls.”
The court's core holding that the failure to prove the beneficiary's involvement in the murder was fatal to the insurer's defense, regardless of any other alleged errors.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ. B. Williams was murdered in his home in Pensacola in July 1936. He held an insurance policy with appellant Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World that…
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 Burden Of Proof For Affirmative Defenses cases and more on FLexlaw
In July, 1936, J. B.- Williams was slain in his home at Pensacola by some unknown person. He held a policy of insurance with appellant at,the time of his death which provided double indemnity to the beneficiary .in the event of his accidental death but subject to Paragraph 10 of Section 57 of its by-laws, as follows:
, “Tenth. That Association shall not be liable for. the payment of double indemnity under any beneficiary certificate of the death of the member of accident where it is claimed that death resulted from accidental drowning, cutting, poisoning, hanging, inhalation Of gas, discharge of firearms, or shooting, unless'tlie fact that such drowning, cutting, poisoning, hanging, inhalation of gas, discharge .of firearms or shooting was accidental shall be established’by the testimony of at least-one person other than the'member, who was an eye witness to such drowning, cutting, poisoning, hanging, inhalation of gas, discharge of firearms or shooting.” , .
" Appellant declined to-pay the policy on "the theory''that Alean Williams, the beneficiary and wife- of' the decéased, was accessory to his death and, being so, the quoted provision barred her from . collecting any part of it. Alean Williams brought this1 action to recover..double the amount named in the face of the policy on the theory that J. B. Williams came to his death by. accidental, means.’ There w.as. a. plea to the declaration which.seeks relief.jr-om payment- of. the.policy on the ground that plaintiff was accessory *78to the murder of her husband. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant sued out writ of error.
Ten questions are urged for reversal but they all revolve around and turn on the proof in support of the affirmative defense of defendant, viz., that plaintiff was accessory to the murder of her husband.
It is admitted that the insured came to his death by mysterious means. It is not denied that he was murdered in his own home but there is a complete failure in the proof to connect defendant in error with the murder. It matters not what else was proven or what othér error may have been committed; if there was failure on this point the case falls. We have examined the other questions but find no reversible error.
Affirmed.
Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
AVhitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21- ofA the Rules of this Court.