How cited: Cluster 529402 · Go Syfert

Cluster 529402 (1989)

green · 19 citation events across 4 courts. Showing the 4 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla. · 2 citations in this opinion
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Kane, read the practice of the Florida courts as refusing to adopt any exceptions to incontestability, in particular, “a fraud or impostor exception.” Id. at 822.
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.
Soc. v. Kane, 885 F.2d 820 (11th Cir.1989), the Eleventh Circuit found that an insurance company “cannot bring a separate tort suit for fraud” when the “fraud suit would merely provide a different means to challenge the validity of the insurance contract.” Id. at 822.
Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Kane , 885 F.2d at 821 (a principal "purpose of [Florida's incontestability] statute is to ... protect[ ] consumers from untimely efforts to void policies ." (emphasis added) (citing Prudential Ins.
a principal "purpose of [Florida's incontestability] statute is to ... protect[ ] consumers from untimely efforts to void policies ." (emphasis added
Cited (see also) · 11th Cir. · signal: see also
Society v. Kane, 885 F.2d 820 , 822 (11th Cir.1989), in which we expressed our opinion that Florida law does not appear to recognize the "imposter defense." The district court, however, chose not to adopt this construction of Florida law, concluding that this portion of our opinion was "properly understood as dicta." Given our ultimate resolution of this dispute, we need not decide whether the district court properly interpreted the scope of our opinion in Kane. 24 See Resta…