GULF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
GROVER C. ELLIS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Gulf Life Insurance Company sought to avoid paying on a life insurance policy issued to Blanche Y. Ellis on the grounds that the insured died before the policy was delivered. The Florida Supreme Court held that under the plain language of the insurance contract, the policy never took effect because the insured was not alive and in good health on the date of delivery as required by the policy terms.
The policy never took effect and was not payable because the insured was not alive and in good health on the effective date of the policy as required by its plain and unambiguous terms. It is not unreasonable to require that the insured be alive and in good health on the date of delivery of the policy.
“the insurance hereby applied for shall not take effect unless and until the policy is delivered to and received by me while I am in good health and free from injury”
Key contractual provision from the application conditioning policy effectiveness on delivery while in good health
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 6, 1938, Blanche Y. Ellis applied for a twenty-year-payment life insurance policy with Gulf Life Insurance Company, paying the first week'…
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 Effective Date Of Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
On December 6, 1938, Blanche Y. Ellis applied to the Gulf Life Insurance Company through its branch office at Ocala for a twenty-year-payment life insurance policy, the premium on which was 35c per week, and the first week’s premium being paid with the application. Her application was forwarded to the home office at Jacksonville where it was approved and the policy executed December 15, 1938, and forwarded to the Ocala office for delivery. It was dated December 19, and was at the Ocala office for delivery on that date but was not delivered because it was learned that the insured died on the day previous as the result of injuries received in an accident.
*263Action was brought by the defendant in error as plaintiff to recover the face of the policy on the theory that it was in full force and effect on the death of the insured. Defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the policy never became effective. The motion was denied and final judgment was entered for the plaintiff. Writ of error was prosecuted.
Several questions are urged but they all turn on that of whether or not under the terms of the insurance contract, the policy was in effect and payable on the death of the insured.
The application for the policy signed by the" applicant contained the following provision:
“. . . (2) That the insurance hereby applied for shall not take effect unless and until the policy is delivered to and received by me while I am in good health and free from injury;”
The receipt given the applicant when the application was accepted contained the following:
“This deposit is made and this receipt issued subject to all the terms of the policy and contingent upon all applicants being in good health. If applicants are accepted and policies issued and delivered to the insured, this deposit will be applied towards payment of premiums thereon. If application is rejected the said deposit will be returned.” .
The policy was executed and dated December 9, 1938, and contained the following provision:
“This policy shall not take effect unless on the date and delivery hereof .the insured is alive and in sound health. . . .”
The plaintiff in. error relies on • the. following to defeat payment o'f the policy, (1) The quoted provisions of the insurance contract, (2) the fact that the insured died Decern*264ber 18 and the policy was dated December 19 subject to delivery on that date, (3) The policy was a species of industrial insurance, premiums payable weekly and the rule of the company was to make them payable on Monday.
The terms of the contract were plain and unambiguous and since the insured was not alive and in good health on the effective date of the policy as its terms require, we have reached the conclusion that it never took effect and recovery cannot be had thereunder. It is certainly not an unreasonable requirement that the insured be alive and in good health on the date of the delivery of the policy. Westmoreland v. Gulf Life Insurance Company, 57 Ga. App. 303, 195 So. E. 316; Erickson v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 256 S. W. 108; Schwartz v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 18 Minn. 488; Denton v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., Tex. Civ. App., 231 S. W. 436; Stockstill v. Life and Casualty Ins. Co., 16 Tenn. App. 538, 65 S. W. (2nd) 243.
The judgment appealed from is reversed.
Reversed.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Buford, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Corine Green, 80 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1955)…nce Company contends' that the judgment must be reversed because the sound health clause was violated and the policy therefore never took effect. We agree. This Court long ago recognized the validity of such a-clause. In Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 145 Fla. 262, 198 So. 836, we said, “It is certainly not an unreasonable requirement that the insured be alive and in good health on the date of the delivery of the policy.” Because it is undisputed that the insured was not in sound health at the time of deliver…
-
The Indep. Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Roddam, 81 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1955)…e Insurance Co. v. Green, supra, we were concerned with an identical provision in a life insurance policy where it was conceded that the insured was not in sound health at the time the policy was issued. We said, quoting Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 145 Fla. 262, 198 So. 836: “ ‘It is certainly not an unreasonable requirement that the insured be alive and in good health on the date of the delivery of the policy.’ Because it is undisputed that the insured was not in sound health at the time of delivery of th…
-
Hunter v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 86 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1956)…we 'upheld a provision to the effect that the policy should not take effect unless on the date of the delivery thereof the insured was alive and in sound health. In that case we again reiterated the language contained in Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 145 Fla. 262, 198 So. 836, viz.: “ ‘It is certainly not an unreasonable requirement that the insured be alive and in good health on the date of the delivery of the policy.’ ” In Aetna Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Jeremiah, supra, the circuit court of the 10th…
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