CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15744, 2011 WL 4577607
...She contends the trial court erred by (1) granting summary judgment when the facts are in dispute, (2) determining she waived her claim to life insurance proceeds, (3) determining that she is estopped from asserting the insurance proceeds were paid to the wrong beneficiary, and (4) determining that section 627.423, Florida Statutes (2004), shielded Guardian Life from liability for paying the wrong beneficiary. Lastly, she contends section 627.423 is unconstitutional as applied in this case....
...Thus, this case was not ripe for summary judgment for either side. Facility of Payment Statutory Defense The circuit court found that Guardian Life was entitled to summary judgment based on its affirmative defense of payment and discharge pursuant to section 627.423, Florida Statutes (2004), which provides: Whenever the proceeds of or payments under a life or health insurance policy or annuity contract become payable in accordance with the terms of such policy or contract, or the exercise of any...
...Other states have adopted a similar statute, and the case law of several states refers to the statute as a "facility of payment statute." There are no state court appellate decisions in Florida interpreting or applying the statute. Given the dearth of case law in Florida construing section 627.423, both Odette and Guardian Life relied in the trial court and in this court upon out-of-state cases for guidance as to the application of the statute to the facts of this case....
...459, 642 A.2d 4 (1994), and the dissent in Fortis Benefits Insurance Company v. Pinkley,
926 So.2d 981 (Ala.2005); Guardian Life principally relied upon the majority opinion in Fortis. Each of these cases dealt with a facility of payment statute. In her brief, Odette first argues that section
627.423 as an affirmative defense is not available because payment was not made "in accordance with the terms of the policy." She contends that the statute does not apply to situations in which a change of beneficiary is procured by a forgery....
..." Niccolls,
92 So.2d at 832-33 (citing Reasoner v. Fisikelli,
114 Fla. 102,
153 So. 98 (1934)). Again, for the reasons discussed below, we determine her argument on this point is not persuasive. Odette supports her analysis of the inapplicability of section
627.423 using case law from other jurisdictions....
...t the insurance company on notice that it was not complying with its own insurance policy by changing the beneficiary. Odette next relies on Bigley v. Pacific Standard Life Insurance Co., 229 Conn. 459, 642 A.2d 4 (1994) to argue that we should rule section 627.423 does not provide a defense in this case. However, we determine Bigley presents no useful guidance to us. First, the statute addressed in Bigley, Connecticut General Statutes section 38a-453, is not at all comparable to section 627.423. Second, the Supreme Court of Connecticut noted in a footnote that section 38a-453 did not apply to the facts of the case. Lastly, Odette argues that in interpreting section 627.423, we should adopt the reasoning of the dissent in Fortis Benefits Insurance Co....
...trial court proceedings and on appeal. We begin our discussion of Fortis with two observations: the case addresses the issue of a change of beneficiary obtained by forgery, and Alabama's facility of payment statute is almost identical in language to section 627.423....
...by a trier of fact, and not by a judge on a motion for summary judgment. Because we find that material facts were in dispute and summary judgment should not have been granted for either side, we do not address the issue of whether the application of section 627.423 was unconstitutional in this case....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16883, 1992 WL 318841
...In its motion for summary judgement, Defendant claims that under Florida law, once payment of death benefits was made in accordance with the terms of the will, it was discharged of any further liability under the policy. In support of this proposition, Defendant points to Florida Statutes, section 627.423....
...yment was made under the policies. The undisputed facts of this case clearly indicate that Defendant made payment of the proceeds of the policies in accordance with the terms of the policies to the beneficiary designated in the policies. Thus, under Section 627.423, Defendant is fully discharged from all claims under the New York Life policies....
...and that summary judgement in this matter is properly granted. As a matter of law, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant made improper payment of policy proceeds under Florida Statutes, section 738.808(2) must fail. Furthermore, under Florida Statutes, section 627.423 Defendant was discharged of all liability under the policies once payment of death benefits was made in accordance with the terms of the policies....
