Court Opinion

ID: 9454690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:54:43.225215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:14.821277
License: Public Domain

SIMPSON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The basic source of the error of the majority appears at page 951 supra:
“ * * * well settled under Florida law that the materiality of misrepresentations by an insured, and the reliance placed upon such misrepresentations by an insurer, are disputed questions of fact to be resolved by a jury.” (Emphasis mine)
Of course these are questions of fact for a jury if they are disputed, just like any other disputed questions of material fact. But these matters were established without dispute and beyond dispute on the record before us.
Dr. H. W. White testified that Mr. Bishop was, in fact ill; that he had consulted a physician, that he had undergone x-ray tests, and that he had received medication two months before and again the day before he made the false statements. Dr. White’s testimony was not rebutted. The appellant supported his veracity by stating her confidence in it.
The reliance by the defendant upon Mr. Bishop’s false statements and their materiality to the risk were established by unassailed (and unassailable) testimony.
There were no issues for the jury. The trial judge, correctly I think, considered himself bound by Shifflet,1 McDonell2 and Wissner,3 to grant a directed verdict.
Directed verdict was granted below, it should be pointed out after full opportunity for exploration of the facts by testimony from both sides. Both McDonell, supra, and Wissner, supra, were summary judgment cases in which we followed the Florida law as set forth by that state’s Supreme Court in Shifflet, supra. Equally with the trial court, this panel is bound by these decisions and should affirm this case.
I respectfully dissent.

. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia v. Shifflet, 201 So.2d 715 (Fla.1967).

. McDonell v. New England Mutual Life Insurance Company, 5 Cir. 1967, 380 F.2d 983.

. Wissner v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 5 Cir. 1968, 395 F.2d 204.