Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 23, 1987; Florida; State Appellate Court
Scottie N. Singer appealed a decision from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, regarding a homeowners insurance policy application with Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Singer's application contained misrepresentations concerning prior insurance policies and previous claims, leading Nationwide to deny coverage following a residential robbery. After failing to timely respond to Nationwide's requests for admissions related to the misrepresentations, Nationwide moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted this motion, ruling that the admissions, deemed conclusively established due to Singer's inaction, supported the denial of coverage.
Singer argued that her later-filed affidavit created a material issue of fact that should have precluded summary judgment. However, the court determined that it did not abuse its discretion in not granting relief from the admissions, given that Singer did not file a motion for such relief. Citing similar case law, the court noted that the absence of a motion for relief from admissions resulting from untimely responses justified reliance on those admissions for summary judgment. The court distinguished this case from others where relief was granted based on different factual circumstances. Additionally, the appellate issue raised whether Nationwide was required to demonstrate that the admitted misrepresentations were materially significant to the risk accepted by the insurer or whether such materiality was established as a matter of law.
Misrepresentations made by an insurance applicant are deemed material as a matter of law. In *Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Denton*, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a false claim about not having previously applied for insurance was significant, as it would have prompted further inquiry from the insurer. The court rejected the argument that the application is incomplete until received at the office, asserting that the applicant must provide complete and truthful information. Specifically, the applicant's failure to disclose a prior application, which was destroyed in the presence of a witness, constituted a material misrepresentation. The requirement for full disclosure is underscored in various cases, including *Massachusetts Bonding Insurance Co. v. Williams*, which established that false answers regarding prior insurance applications are material, and *Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Candelore*, where not indicating medical consultations prior to application was similarly deemed material. The court noted that while materiality can be a factual question in cases of dispute about the application process, it was not a factor in the current case due to clear admissions from the applicant.
Misrepresentations in insurance applications are generally deemed representations rather than warranties under Section 627.409 of Florida Statutes. Recovery under a policy may be denied if misrepresentations are fraudulent, material to the insurer's risk assessment, or if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the true facts. Materiality does not depend solely on whether the insurer was influenced but rather on whether truthful statements could reasonably have affected the insurer's decision to accept or reject the risk. This includes an objective assessment of facts that would prompt further inquiry by a prudent insurer. The statute distinguishes between objective materiality (subdivision (1)(b)) and subjective views of the insurer (subdivision (1)(c)). Determining materiality under (1)(b) may be a legal question, while (1)(c) typically involves factual determination requiring evidence from the insurer. In this case, relevant admissions include prior claims made by the plaintiff for stolen personal property.
Scottie N. Singer held homeowner's insurance with both Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and West American Insurance Company prior to November 28, 1983. On her insurance application, she falsely indicated that she had no past claims for theft and that no policies had been canceled or nonrenewed. However, evidence showed she had been insured by multiple companies and had previously filed theft claims for personal property. The trial court deemed these misrepresentations material to the insurance risk under Florida Statutes section 627.409(1)(b), leading to the nullification of the policy. The summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed, with Judges Anstead and Glickstein concurring.
