Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Johnson
114 So. 3d 1031
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- March 13, 2008 fire destroyed the Johnsons’ home; they were insured by Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Co.
- Universal denied the claim after investigation concluded the Johnsons made a misrepresentation on the application.
- The misrepresentation was Mrs. Johnson’s answer to “Have you been convicted of a felony in the last ten years,” which was false since she had five felonies adjudicated in 1998.
- The 1998 adjudication occurred eight-and-a-half years before the application; the probation was revoked after subsequent arrests.
- At trial, the Johnsons argued the misrepresentation was unintentional and Universal relied on a statute (section 627.409(1), Florida Statutes) rather than the policy language to deny recovery.
- The jury found no intentional misrepresentation and that, if known, the insurer would have issued the policy at issue; judgment was entered for the Johnsons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether policy voids for misrepresentation without requiring intent | Johnsons: contract language controls, not statute; requires intent to void | Universal: statute allows voiding for misrepresentation without intent and policy should align | Policy does not require intent; misrepresentation may void the contract under §627.409(1) and the policy |
| Whether contract standard for rescission is stricter than §627.409(1) | Johnsons: contract may contract around statutory standard | Universal: no stricter standard than statute | Contract does not impose a stricter standard than §627.409(1) |
| Whether the trial court erred by not entering judgment for Universal based on jury findings | Johnsons: jury found no intentional misrepresentation | Universal: misrepresentation need not be intentional and facts show policy voids | Court should have entered judgment for Universal; policy voids the contract |
| Whether the jury’s findings on materiality support voiding the policy | Johnsons: jury’s materiality finding aligns with statute | Universal: material misrepresentation (even if not intentional) voids policy | Given the materiality finding, insurance contract is void; judgment reversed in Universal’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Life & Health of America, 704 So.2d 1386 (Fla.1998) (statutory standard governs misrepresentation voiding)
- Kieser v. Old Line Life Ins. Co. of Am., 712 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (nonintentional misstatement may void policy under §627.409)
- Gainsco v. ECS/Choicepoint Servs., Inc., 853 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (section 627.409 allows voiding for misrepresentation without regard to intent)
- Continental Assurance Co. v. Carroll, 485 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1986) (premise that misrepresentation affects risk may void policy)
- GRG Transport, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 896 So.2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (§627.409 governing misrepresentation in insurance)