Case Name: AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Glenda S. SIEVERT, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-06-09
Citations: 361 So. 2d 747
Docket Number: No. GG-52
Parties: AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Glenda S. SIEVERT, Appellee.
Judges: McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 361
Pages: 747–749

Head Matter:
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Glenda S. SIEVERT, Appellee.
No. GG-52.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 9, 1978.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1978.
Robert P. Gaines, of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for appellant.
Louis K. Rosenbloum and Richard P. Warfield, of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Rosenbloum & Magie, Pensacola, for appellee.

Opinion:
BOYER, Judge.
Aetna appeals a final judgment entered by the trial court pursuant to a jury verdict for appellee. It contends, first, that the lower court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence. We do not agree. A verdict should be directed only when the evidence would not be legally sufficient to sustain a verdict and that is not the case here. Secondly, Aetna contends that the court erred in denying its motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Its basic argument is that there was compelling evidence that appellee's deceased husband had made material misrepresentations and omissions on his application for group credit life 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. Carter, 350 So.2d 78 (Fla.1977). Appellee is not the contracting insured, the insured's estate, a specifically named policy beneficiary nor an assignee of the policy; therefore she cannot recover an attorney's fee under Section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (1975). Neither may she prevail on her theory of third party beneficiary. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Helton, 298 So.2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. dis., 330 So.2d 724 (Fla.1976). Furthermore, it does not appear that the policy was delivered in this state. (See F.S. 627.401) The provision for $9,000.00 fees is therefore deleted from the Final Judgment.
Finally, Aetna contends that certain of Appellee's costs were not properly taxed. Included in the taxed costs were expenses in obtaining hospital records, a copy of a deposition and over $250.00 for transportation of counsel to attend the deposition of Dr. Davis, the neighborhood doctor who had at the time of the trial moved to Virginia. Aetna urges that those items should not have been allowed. We agree. The hospital records were not admitted into evidence and no necessity for them was demonstrated. The copy of the deposition was neither entered into evidence nor used at the trial for impeachment nor otherwise. (See Horner v. Red Top Cab & Baggage Co., 37 So.2d 160 (Fla.1948)) Neither was the taxation of counsel's expenses for traveling to Virginia for the purpose of deposition proper. The taxation of costs is hereby reduced to $102.19.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.