UNDERWRITERS NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
EARLE A. HARRISON, 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.
An insurance company appeals a jury verdict finding it liable for disability insurance benefits despite claiming the insured made material misrepresentations in his application. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that questions of fact regarding the materiality of representations and the insurer's reliance are properly submitted to the jury.
The court held that questions of fact regarding representations made on insurance applications, when disputed, are properly submitted to a jury for determination. When a jury verdict is supported by competent evidence, an appellate court must affirm absent a clear showing of error.
[1] Disputed questions of fact regarding an insured's representations on an insurance application are generally for the jury to resolve.
[2] On appeal from a jury verdict, all testimony and proper inferences must be construed most favorably to the prevailing party.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 general rule in Florida is that the answers given or the representations made by an insured on an application for insurance, when disputed, present questions of fact to be resolved by a jury”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that disputed representations are fact questions for jury determination
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee filed a complaint against appellant insurance company seeking recovery of disability insurance benefits and attorney's fees. Appellant denied…
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 Reliance On Representations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, defendant below, appeals a final judgment entered by the trial court pursuant to a jury verdict for appellee, plaintiff below.
Appellee filed a complaint against appellant seeking to recover benefits under a disability insurance policy and for attorney’s fees. Appellant denied that any benefits were due under the policy because it had been rescinded and because the contract was void by reason of certain material misrepresentations made by appellee in his application for the policy.
Subsequently, the case went to trial and, after appellant’s motions for a directed verdict were denied, the jury returned a verdict for appellee. Pursuant to this verdict, a final judgment, dated June 19, 1975, was entered in favor of appellee. From the judgment, appellant appeals.
Appellant contends that there was no competent substantial evidence adduced from which the court could have concluded that the misrepresentations made by appel-lee were not material to the risk accepted by appellant or that appellant did not rely substantially upon appellee’s representations in the application in executing the policy of insurance.
Appellee contends that the trial court acted with propriety by entering a final judgment upon the jury verdict and by denying appellant’s motions for a directed verdict and new trial because the questions of fact were properly submitted to the jiiry and no error was committed by denying appellant’s motions.
Appellant’s basic argument on appeal is that material misrepresentations were made by appellee in the application for the insurance policy and that, had it known of appellee’s prior medical history, it would not have issued the policy. Among other authorities, appellant cites Section 627.409, Florida Statutes (1975), in support of its position.
The general rule in Florida is that the answers given or the representations made by an insured on an application for insurance, when disputed, present questions of fact to be resolved by a jury. See, e. g., Hyman v. Life Insurance Company of North America, 481 F. 2d 444 (5th Cir. 1973) (decided upon Florida law); Traveler's Insurance Company v. Zimmerman, 309 So. 2d 569 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); and Lamm v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 179 So. 2d 238 (Fla.3d DCA 1965). This general rule is applicable to the instant appeal and the factual issues pertaining to appellee’s representations on the application for insurance were properly submitted to the jury for a determination.
Upon a defendant’s, here appellant, appeal from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict for a plaintiff, here appellee, all of the testimony and all proper inferences therefrom must be construed most favorably to the plaintiff. , See, e. g., Land v. Patroni, 214 So. 2d 94 (Fla.1st DCA 1968); and F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Stevens, 154 So. 2d 201 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). While an appellate court may not always agree with the conclusions of the jury from the conflicting evidentiary facts presented to it, the court is generally bound to affirm the jury’s determination, absent a clear showing that it is erroneous, when it is supported by sufficient competent evidence. See, e. g., Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Coloposcope of America, Inc., 308 So. 2d 52 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Miami Shores Village v. Lingler, 157 So. 2d 716 (Fla.3d DCA 1963); and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals §§ 308 and 346.
Although, in the instant case, if we had been sitting as jurors we might have decided the case differently, after a careful consideration of the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, we have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the final judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
AETNA Life Ins. Co. v. Sievert, 361 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…coverage. We find this point to be without merit. The general rule in Florida is that representations made by an insured on an insurance application present questions of fact to be resolved by a jury. Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. Harrison, 338 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Hyman v. Life Insurance Co. of North America, 481 F. 2d 441 (5th Cir. 1973). Aetna also contends that attorney’s fees should not have been awarded to ap-pellee. That point has recently been resolved in Aetna’s favor by Roberts v…
-
Wellington E. Beneby v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 402 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…pertaining to misrepresentations on an application for insurance are properly within the province of the trier of fact. Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Sievert, 361 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Underwriters National Assurance Company v. Harrison, 338 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). This case is similar to the factual pattern presented in Travelers Insurance Company v. Zimmerman, 309 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) where we recognized that: (1) the extent of questions asked by an insurance agent; (2) the accur…
-
Grossman v. SEA AIR Towers, 513 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…t both Grossman and Bliss were liable for Sea Air’s loss. A jury verdict which finds support in the record will not be disturbed on review. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Underwriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. Harrison, 338 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). On the first of two damage issues we affirm the judgment as to lost rents. Contrary to the appellants’ contentions that the $299,543.33 lost rents award is based on gross rentals alone or speculation, there is evidence in the re…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Zimmerman, 309 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Lamm v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am., 179 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Emily Ann Stevens and her husband, 154 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Miami Shores Vill. v. Lingler, 157 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Land v. Hargis Patroni and Nettie H. Patroni, 214 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Verander Harvey v. State, 308 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- S. Fla. Bus. Negotiators, Inc. v. Lerner, 308 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)