JEANNETTE C. HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE CO., 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.
Hall appeals a summary judgment dismissing her disability benefits claim based on alleged misrepresentation on her insurance application. The court reversed, finding that the application language was ambiguous regarding whether Hall was required to disclose previously recommended but not yet performed medical procedures, and that factual disputes precluded summary judgment.
The court held that summary judgment was improper because the application language was ambiguous and could reasonably be interpreted two ways: requiring disclosure of all recommendations ever made or only pending recommendations at the time of application. The existence of this ambiguity and factual dispute regarding whether a recommendation was pending at the time of application precluded summary judgment.
[1] Ambiguities in an application for insurance are construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer who prepared the policy.
[2] Whether answers to questions on an application for insurance constituted misrepresentations is normally a question for the finder of fact.
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“Ambiguities in an application for insurance are construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer who prepared the policy.”
Establishes the governing principle that ambiguous insurance application language must be interpreted in the insured's favor, not the insurer's.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHall applied for a disability insurance policy with American Heritage Life Insurance Company. The application contained a question about medical or su…
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 Duty To Disclose Medical History cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWSON, J.
Jeannette Hall appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of American Heritage Life Insurance Company (“AHL”), dismissing her suit for disability benefits based upon a finding that Hall misrepresented a material fact on her insurance application.
The trial court found that the application clearly and unambigu ously required Hall to disclose any medical or surgical procedure that had been recommended by a doctor at any point during her lifetime, and not performed.1 It is undisputed that Hall did not disclose any recommended medical procedures on her insurance application, although a doctor had recommended that she undergo a hysterectomy at some point in time prior to her application. At oral argument, counsel for AHL properly conceded that the application could also reasonably have been read as requiring Hall only to disclose medical or surgical procedures being recommended at the time of the application, but not yet performed. See Graham v. Lloyd’s Underwriters at London, 964 So. 2d 269, 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Ambiguities in an application for insurance are construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer who prepared the-policy.”) (citation omitted).
Given this concession, and because a factual dispute appears to exist regarding whether Hall had a pending recommendation for a hysterectomy at the time she applied for the AHL disability policy, it is clear that summary judgment should not have been granted. See id. (“Whether ... answers to questions on [an] application for insurance constituted misrepresentations is normally a question for the finder of fact.”).
Therefore, we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J., and EVANDER, J., concur. . This would include, for example, a minor procedure recommended for Hall as a child, but not performed decades earlier, or a caesarean section recommended for a woman who elected against the procedure and gave birth without incident years or decades earlier — in other words, matters with little or no apparent relevance to AHL’s underwriting decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Graham v. Lloyd's Underwriters AT London, 964 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)