incontestability clause in Florida

2003This fact does not automatically bring the claim under the protection of the policy’s incontestability clause. 2 This case is governed by this court’s decision in North Miami General Hospital v. Central National Life Insurance Co., 419 So.2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

2003Id. at 802 .

1996Co., 641 So.2d 895 , 897 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). [5] Although immaterial to our disposition, Florida cases also hold that where an insurance policy contains an incontestability clause, the insurance company must contest the policy by appropriate litigation prior to the expiration of the two-year incontestable period.

1996Those who deliberately misstate their age and thus tend to lower the experience record of the group should not be placed by construction within the aegis of the incontestability provision.’ “Similarly, in the present case we can envisage the possibility of an adverse effect upon other employers if, by virtue of the incontestability clause, claims must be paid out upon the death of persons not meeting the standards of eligibility contained in the policy, in that actuarial calculations upon which the premium rate had been determined could be distorted, with the consequence of increased rates bei

1996Soc’y of the U.S., 56 Ill.2d 41 , 305 N.E.2d 144 (1973), in which the court concluded that if the beneficiary of a group life insurance policy was not eligible in the first place, that defense is not barred by an incontestability clause, explaining: A challenge to eligibility does not, however, involve an attack by the insurer on the validity of the master policy.

1996Soc’y of the U.S., 56 Ill.2d 41 , 305 N.E.2d 144 (1973), in which the court concluded that if the beneficiary of a group life insurance policy was not eligible in the first place, that defense is not barred by an incontestability clause, explaining: A challenge to eligibility does not, however, involve an attack by the insurer on the validity of the master policy.

1982Presented with a nearly identical provision of a disability policy, the court, in Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Hayden, 87 Misc.2d 1039 , 386 N.Y.S.2d 978 (Sup.Ct. 1976), aff'd, 60 A.D.2d 823 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 992 , motion for leave to appeal dismissed, 44 N.Y.2d 838 , 406 N.Y.S.2d 758 , 378 N.E.2d 121 (1978), held that the date a claim is filed is irrelevant to a determination of the applicability of the incontestability clause. [2] The important date is when the loss is incurred.

1982Presented with a nearly identical provision of a disability policy, the court, in Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Hayden, 87 Misc.2d 1039 , 386 N.Y.S.2d 978 (Sup.Ct. 1976), aff'd, 60 A.D.2d 823 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 992 , motion for leave to appeal dismissed, 44 N.Y.2d 838 , 406 N.Y.S.2d 758 , 378 N.E.2d 121 (1978), held that the date a claim is filed is irrelevant to a determination of the applicability of the incontestability clause. [2] The important date is when the loss is incurred.

1982Presented with a nearly identical provision of a disability policy, the court, in Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Hayden, 87 Misc.2d 1039 , 386 N.Y.S.2d 978 (Sup.Ct. 1976), aff'd, 60 A.D.2d 823 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 992 , motion for leave to appeal dismissed, 44 N.Y.2d 838 , 406 N.Y.S.2d 758 , 378 N.E.2d 121 (1978), held that the date a claim is filed is irrelevant to a determination of the applicability of the incontestability clause. [2] The important date is when the loss is incurred.

1982Presented with a nearly identical provision of a disability policy, the court, in Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Hayden, 87 Misc.2d 1039 , 386 N.Y.S.2d 978 (Sup.Ct. 1976), aff'd, 60 A.D.2d 823 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 992 , motion for leave to appeal dismissed, 44 N.Y.2d 838 , 406 N.Y.S.2d 758 , 378 N.E.2d 121 (1978), held that the date a claim is filed is irrelevant to a determination of the applicability of the incontestability clause. [2] The important date is when the loss is incurred.

1982Presented with a nearly identical provision of a disability policy, the court, in Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Hayden, 87 Misc.2d 1039 , 386 N.Y.S.2d 978 (Sup.Ct. 1976), aff'd, 60 A.D.2d 823 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 992 , motion for leave to appeal dismissed, 44 N.Y.2d 838 , 406 N.Y.S.2d 758 , 378 N.E.2d 121 (1978), held that the date a claim is filed is irrelevant to a determination of the applicability of the incontestability clause. [2] The important date is when the loss is incurred.

1982Presented with a nearly identical provision of a disability policy, the court, in Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Hayden, 87 Misc.2d 1039 , 386 N.Y.S.2d 978 (Sup.Ct. 1976), aff'd, 60 A.D.2d 823 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 992 , motion for leave to appeal dismissed, 44 N.Y.2d 838 , 406 N.Y.S.2d 758 , 378 N.E.2d 121 (1978), held that the date a claim is filed is irrelevant to a determination of the applicability of the incontestability clause. [2] The important date is when the loss is incurred.

1982Thus, the incontestability period obviously applied in that case. [3] We note that even if the loss was incurred after the two-year contestable period and thus the Insurer was barred from contesting the claim on the ground that the disease was pre-existing, the Hospital would still be presented with the formidable stumbling block of Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company v. Forman, 516 F.2d 425 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 914 , 96 S.Ct. 1114 , 47 L.Ed.2d 319 (1976) (construing Florida law) which held that in insurance policies containing both the pre-existing illness incontestabil

1982Thus, the incontestability period obviously applied in that case. [3] We note that even if the loss was incurred after the two-year contestable period and thus the Insurer was barred from contesting the claim on the ground that the disease was pre-existing, the Hospital would still be presented with the formidable stumbling block of Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company v. Forman, 516 F.2d 425 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 914 , 96 S.Ct. 1114 , 47 L.Ed.2d 319 (1976) (construing Florida law) which held that in insurance policies containing both the pre-existing illness incontestabil

1982Thus, the incontestability period obviously applied in that case. [3] We note that even if the loss was incurred after the two-year contestable period and thus the Insurer was barred from contesting the claim on the ground that the disease was pre-existing, the Hospital would still be presented with the formidable stumbling block of Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company v. Forman, 516 F.2d 425 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 914 , 96 S.Ct. 1114 , 47 L.Ed.2d 319 (1976) (construing Florida law) which held that in insurance policies containing both the pre-existing illness incontestabil

1982Thus, the incontestability period obviously applied in that case. [3] We note that even if the loss was incurred after the two-year contestable period and thus the Insurer was barred from contesting the claim on the ground that the disease was pre-existing, the Hospital would still be presented with the formidable stumbling block of Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company v. Forman, 516 F.2d 425 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 914 , 96 S.Ct. 1114 , 47 L.Ed.2d 319 (1976) (construing Florida law) which held that in insurance policies containing both the pre-existing illness incontestabil

1975We think that the termination of employment is clearly a matter which the insurer may raise, as was held by the appellate court in Baker v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 279 Ill.

1939Ass’n, 159 N. Y. 411 , 54 N. E. 72 , the policy had become incontestable before its lapse, but in considering the effect of' the incontestable clause upon the reinstatement, the Court of Appeals held that after reinstatement the policy of insurance was restored in full vigor as of that date, and became incontestable two years thereafter, and further said: ‘And it seems to *831 us, after an examination' of the contract, that the defendant had two years after the reinstatement within which to investigate the condition of Teeter’s health at the time of' the making of the reinstatement certificate

1939Ass’n, 159 N. Y. 411 , 54 N. E. 72 , the policy had become incontestable before its lapse, but in considering the effect of' the incontestable clause upon the reinstatement, the Court of Appeals held that after reinstatement the policy of insurance was restored in full vigor as of that date, and became incontestable two years thereafter, and further said: ‘And it seems to *831 us, after an examination' of the contract, that the defendant had two years after the reinstatement within which to investigate the condition of Teeter’s health at the time of' the making of the reinstatement certificate

1939I. 334, 166 A. 809, 812 , the court said: ‘We think the incontestability clause, which is inserted for the benefit of the insured, can properly be held to apply also to the reinstatement contract and to be operative for a period of one year from the date of the reinstatement.’ “In Teeter v. United Life Ins.

1937“Whether this was done purposely as a means of depriving the insured of her constitutional right to a jury trial on certain issues of fact arising because of its denial of liability on the policy, or whether it was due merely to the insurer’s neglect, the result is the same, namely,, the insured will be deprived of her constitutional right to a jury trial because of the act of the insurer in withholding its notice of election to deny liability until the last day of the contestable period, whereas it plainly appears that it was in a position to have given notice of election to rescind at a much

1933In Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Connallon 154 Atl. 729 , the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey said: “The court below held that: ‘The date of the policy- does not necessarily determine its date of issue.” The incontestability clause as' written by the complainant apparently recognizes a distinction, because it is not stated to run from the date of the policy but from the date the policy was issued.

1933Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Pickering, 293, Fed. 496; Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. v. McIntyre, 294 Fed. 886 ; Chun Ngit Ngan v. Prudential Insurance Co., 9 Fed. (2nd Ed.) 340; Powell v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 313 Ind. 161 , 144 N. E.

1933In Goodwin v. Provident Savings Life Assurance Association, 97 Iowa 226 , 59 Am.