Case Name: MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Susan K. CANDELORE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-05-26
Citations: 416 So. 2d 1149
Docket Number: No. 81-493
Parties: MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Susan K. CANDELORE, Appellee.
Judges: SHARP, W. J., concurring and concurring specially, with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 416
Pages: 1149–1152

Head Matter:
MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Susan K. CANDELORE, Appellee.
No. 81-493.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
May 26, 1982.
Rehearing Denied July 27, 1982.
Ronald L. Harrop of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, P. A., Orlando, for appellant.
Herbert H. Hall, Jr. and Ronald J. Langa of Maher, Overchuek, Langa & Cate, P. A., Orlando, for appellee.

Opinion:
COWART, Judge.
This is an action on a life insurance policy in which the defendant insurance company asserted the defense of a material misrepresentation in the application for the policy. The jury found against the insurance company, which appeals the denial of its motions for directed verdict made during the trial and its subsequent motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto.
The substantial uncontradicted evidence clearly established that the insured consulted two physicians during the month immediately preceding his application for insurance, yet in the application he denied having consulted any physician during the preceding three years. Appellee argues that whether the misrepresentation was material is a question of fact for the jury which was resolved in appellee's favor. However, the evidence is also uncontradicted that, had the question been truthfully answered, as a matter of the insurance company's standard business practice and guidelines, the application would not have been summarily approved by a group administration unit, but would have been passed on to a group underwriting department. The underwriting department would have investigated the doctor's reports, which would have revealed that the applicant had suffered a quick on-set of sclerodactylia and that, while that condition may or may not have lead to scleroderma, a life-threatening disease, the insurance company would not at that time have approved the application and issued the policy. Under these circumstances, courts have generally found that the misrepresentation was material as a matter of law. Appellant's motions for a disposition of the question of the misrepresentation and its materiality by the trial court as a matter of law should have been granted under the facts of this case. Accordingly, the final judgment is
REVERSED and the cause remanded for entry of judgment in favor of appellant.
SHARP, W. J., concurring and concurring specially, with opinion.
DAUKSCH, C. J., dissenting with opinion.
. See § 627.409(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1979); World Ins. Inc. v. Posey, 227 So.2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Douglas v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 191 So.2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).
. Materiality of a fact, in insurance law, is somewhat subjective and relates to what the fact reasonably and naturally means to the insurer as a practical matter of probability at the time of acceptance of the risk and not to what, after the event, a jury might consider as being unreasonable or as to not being an actual causal connection between the fact and the risked event.
. See, e.g., Life Ins. Co. of Virginia v. Shifflet, 201 So.2d 715 (Fla.1967); Thompson v. New York Life Ins. Co. 143 Fla. 534, 197 So. 111 (1940) (civil court of record entered judgment on a verdict for insured, circuit court reversed judgment and adjudged as a matter of law that the insured was not entitled to recover judgment, affirmed on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Nespereira, 366 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (judgment for insured reversed on appeal); Garwood v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of U. S., 299 So.2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 321 So.2d 553 (Fla.1975) (summary judgment for insurer affirmed); Varelas v. Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., 277 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (trial judge, who had previously reserved ruling, directed verdict for insurance company after jury verdict for insured, affirmed on appeal); Kelly v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 224 So.2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) (summary judgment for insurer affirmed).