NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGINIA K. CHILDS, 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.
New York Life Insurance Company appeals the denial of its motion to exclude evidence regarding whether the insured was a pilot or crew member under an aviation exclusion in a double indemnity life insurance policy. The court reversed, finding the excluded evidence material and relevant to the central disputed issues.
The excluded evidence was material and relevant to the issues of whether the insured was a member of the crew or participating in aviation training. Although the defendant introduced some direct evidence that the insured was 'a pilot' and 'the pilot of the aircraft,' the excluded documentary evidence could have borne on whether he was a crew member or in training, making it prejudicial error to exclude it.
[1] Evidence of a pilot's license, medical certificate, and logbooks is material and relevant to determining whether the insured was a pilot or crew member of an aircraft for…
[2] Evidence of a student pilot's license and medical certificate is material and relevant to determining whether the insured was participating in aviation training for purpo…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the double indemnity benefit will not be payable if such death results from * * * travel or flight in any kind of aircraft (including falling or otherwise descending from or with such aircraft in flight) while the insured is participating in aviation training in such aircraft, or is a pilot, officer, or other member of the crew of such aircraft.”
Establishes the policy exclusion language that is central to the dispute over coverage
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVirginia K. Childs was the beneficiary under a double indemnity life insurance policy issued by New York Life on her deceased husband. The husband die…
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 Aviation Exclusion Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
Virginia K. Childs sued New York Life Insurance Company to recover as the beneficiary under the double indemnity provisions of a life insurance policy it had issued to her deceased husband. Defendant denied liability and alleged that the accidental death of her insured husband fell within this policy exclusion:
“ * * * the double indemnity benefit will not be payable if such death results from * * * travel or flight in any kind of aircraft (including falling or otherwise descending from or with such aircraft in flight) while the insured is participating in aviation training in such aircraft, or is a pilot, officer, or other member of the crew of such aircraft. * * *»
During trial defendant attempted to introduce into evidence the insured’s pilot’s license, medical certificate and logbooks, the license and medical certificate of the only other occupant of the aircraft which crashed and certain portions of the Federal Aviation Regulations and the Code of Federal Regulations. Plaintiff objected solely on the grounds of materiality and relevancy and the objections were sustained. The jury verdict and final judgment were for plaintiff and defendant has appealed.
On appeal defendant argues the issues raised by the pleadings were: (1) was the insured a pilot of the aircraft; (2) was the insured a member of the crew of the aircraft; and (3) was the insured participating in aviation training; and that the aforesaid evidence was material and relevant to these issues.
Plaintiff believes that even if this argument is correct the error was harmless because there was direct evidence elicited by defendant from one of its witnesses that the insured “was a pilot”; was “the pilot of the aircraft” at the time of the crash; and the other occupant “was a student pilot flying with him”.
The record shows the Piper Cub aircraft which crashed had dual controls; the main instrument panel was in the front seat of the tandem seated aircraft; and the deceased insured was seated in the front seat and the occupant in the rear seat.
It appears to us that the evidence in question was material and relevant to the issues of whether the insured was a *290member of the crew of the aircraft or was participating in aviation training at the time of the crash. See Liberty National Life Ins. Co. v. Dobson, 377 F.2d 861 (5th Cir. (1967); Baugher v. Boley, 63 Fla. 75, 58 So. 980 (1912); Zabner v. Howard Johnson’s Incorporated of Florida, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 543; and 13 Fla.Jur. Evidence § 128. We, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.
We find no error in the exclusion of oral testimony of a witness concerning a statement of the deceased passenger regarding the purpose of the fatal flight. The proffer shows that the testimony sought from this witness was not relevant or material to the issues involved herein.
Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Doctors Co. v. State, 940 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…1999-2002. Whether the Agreement could have been more clearly drafted to protect Appellant’s business interest was not relevant, and the trial court correctly excluded Mr. Schacht’s attempt to make it relevant. See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Childs, 252 So. 2d 288, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (finding no error in trial court’s exclusion of testimony when the proffer demonstrated that the testimony was neither relevant nor material to the issues involved). Appellant next argues that the trial court abused its disc…
-
Proprietors Ins. Co. v. West, 435 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…, 125 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). We therefore hold that the trial court’s exclusion of the DeLand employees’ testimony, which was relevant to establish proximate cause, constituted reversible error. See New York Life Insurance Company v. Childs, 252 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The remaining issues are without merit. [*298] Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. . The application of North Carolina law would produce a result different from the application of Florida law with…
-
Wiley Phillips v. Albertson's, Inc., 503 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…ER CURIAM. We affirm the judgment for defendant entered upon a jury verdict in this personal injury suit. We do not conclude that the trial court erred in excluding plaintiff’s proferred expert testimony. See New York Life Insurance Co. v. Childs, 252 So. 2d 288, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). DANAHY, C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Zabner v. Howard Johnson's Inc. of Fla., 227 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Baugher v. Boley, 63 Fla. 75 (Fla. 1912)
- Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Runnette B. Dobson, 377 F.2d 861 (5th Cir. 1967)