MRS. W. B. ANDERSON, A WIDOW,
v.
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO.
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.
Widow sued on a life insurance policy's double indemnity clause after her husband's death. The insured was found dead in a latrine with a bullet wound, and the insurer denied the double indemnity benefit claiming suicide rather than accident. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the directed verdict for the insurer, finding the widow failed to establish a prima facie case of accidental death.
The court affirmed the directed verdict for the insurer, holding that the widow failed to establish a prima facie case of accidental death. Because no prima facie case was made, the burden never shifted to the defendant to overcome it with evidence of suicide.
“The burden was first on the plaintiff to prove that the deceased came to his death by accidental means, this being her reliance for recovery. The defense of suicide must overcome this proof and maj' not come into the picture if a prima facie case on the basis of accidental death is not made.”
Establishes the burden of proof allocation in double indemnity cases—plaintiff must first establish accidental death before defendant's suicide defense is relevant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe insured was found dead in a latrine at the back of his residence with a bullet through his head and his pistol by his feet. The insurance policy's…
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 Double Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error brought a common law action' against the defendant in error to recover the double indemnity feature of a life insurance policy. The face of the policy was paid promptly but double indemnity was declined on the theory that the insured came to his death by suicide and not by accident. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony, there was an instructed verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff sued out writ of error.
The declaration was cast on the theory of accidental death. There were two pleas, one denied accidental death and the other offered suicide as a defense. The insured was found dead in a latrine at the back of his residence with a bullet through his head and his pistol by his feet.
The plaintiff in error relies on Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Johnson, 122 Fla. 567, 166 So. 442, for reversal. The burden was first on the plaintiff to prove that the deceased came to his death by accidental means, this being her reliance for recovery. The defense of suicide must overcome this proof and maj' not come into the picture if a prima facie case on the basis of accidental death is not made. The evidence has been examined and while we do not feel called on to review it, we see no theory on' which it would support a verdict for double indemnity. A prima facie case not having been made on the ground claimed, the burden did not shift to the defendant to overcome that case with evidence on the defense of suicide.
*200The judgment below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Buford and Thomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Bell, 147 Fla. 734 (Fla. 1941)…the evidence was sufficient to submit the issue to the jury. This case is ruled by the opinion of this Court in Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Johnson, 122 Fla. 567, 166 So. 443, and not by Anderson v. New York Life Insurance Company, 140 Fla. 198, 191 So. 307. The manner of death was a question of fact for the jury’s determination. Moore v. Diethrich, 133 Fla. 809, 183 So. 2. “. . . A verdict for the defendant should never-be directed by the court unless it is clear that there is no eviden…
-
World Ins. Co. v. Kincaid, 145 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…nsured. The burden of proof rested on the plaintiffs to establish that death was caused (a) by accidental means and (b) under circumstances not falling within the exclusionary provisions, if any, of the policy. In Anderson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 140 Fla. 198, 191 So. 307, which was a suit on the double indemnity feature of a life insurance policy, the claim was cast on the theory of accidental death. There were two pleas, one denying accidental death and the other offering suicide as a defense. The insu…
-
S. Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Medley, 161 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…ntiff, and .all that was necessary to entitle plaintiff to .get to the jury would be a showing of death, plus some evidence of accident contributing thereto. The following year, however, •the Supreme Court decided Anderson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 140 Fla. 198, 191 So. 307 wherein it stated: “The plaintiff in error relies on Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Johnson, 122 Fla. 567, 166 So. 442, for reversal. [Lower court had directed a verdict for defendant insurance •company at the end of the…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Johnson, 122 Fla. 567 (Fla. 1935)
- Blackwell v. State, 166 So. 442 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936)