SARAH WINER, A WIDOW,
v.
NEW YORK LIFE INS. 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.
The Florida Supreme Court recalled its mandate to reconsider a prior decision on a petition for rehearing that was filed late. The court granted a rehearing on briefs to address specific legal questions regarding the equity of the bill of complaint and the effect of an incontestable clause on alleged misrepresentations.
The court granted a rehearing on briefs to reconsider its prior decision on the two stated legal questions. The holding on the merits of these questions is reserved for further briefing and argument.
“In this case, the Court, ex mero matu, recalled its mandate in order that it might reconsider its former opinion and decision, that it might, if it should see fit, grant a rehearing.”
Establishes the court's sua sponte action to reconsider its prior ruling.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee, New York Life Ins. Co., filed a petition for rehearing after the initial decision in this case, but the petition was filed after the fif…
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 Incontestability Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case, the Court, ex mero matu, recalled its mandate in order that it might reconsider its former opinion and decision, that it might, if it should see fit, grant a rehearing. A petition for rehearing had been filed, but it reached this Court after the fifteen-day period had elapsed.
Upon reconsideration of the case, the Court has decided to allow a rehearing on briefs, without oral argument, upon the following questions:
1. Did the bill of complaint contain equity?
2. Was this Court correct in holding in its opinion that: “The facts constituting false and untrue representations made to the plaintiff in the application for reinstatement of the policy in question are not affected by the incontestable clause contained or expressed in the policy”?
As the appellee asked for the rehearing, appellee is allowed fifteen days in which to file brief in support of its contentions in regard to the foregoing questions, copy of such hr.ief to be promptly served on counsel for appellant, and counsel for appellant is allowed a like time in which to file a reply brief, copy of which is to be served upon counsel for appellee.
*536It is so ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Buford, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaufman v. Mut. OF Omaha Ins. Co., 681 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ses in insurance policies are favored in the law, and the courts are ever ready to construe them, if possible, in favor of the insured.” Prudential Ins. Co. v. Prescott, 130 Fla. 11, 176 So. 875, 878 (1937); see also Winer v. New York Life Ins. Co., 140 Fla. 534, 190 So. 894, 900-01 (1938)(construing incontestability clause); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Prescott, 115 Fla. 365, 156 So. 109,111-12 (1933)(same); Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Thorn, 815 So. 2d 219, 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)(same); Prudential Ins. Co. v.…
-
Mass. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Forman, 516 F.2d 425 (5th Cir. 1975)…fits unless the incontestability provisions of the policy caused this prior-existing illness to become covered. We conclude that they did not have that effect. Incontestable clauses protect both insurer and insured. Winer v. New York Life Ins. Co., 140 Fla. 534, 190 So. 894 (1938). An incontestable clause safeguards an insured from excessive litigation many years after a policy has already been in force and assures him security in financial planning for his family, while providing an insurer a reasonable o…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Winer v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 130 Fla. 115 (Fla. 1937)