Case Search

Please select a category.

FLORIDA PAIN & WELLNESS CENTERS, INC., (a/a/o Dennis P. Williams), Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 815b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2509DWILInsurance — Application — Misrepresentations — Materiality — Failure to disclose household member on insurance application did not constitute material misrepresentation under circumstances — Omission of person who never drove insured vehicle was not material to risk assumed under policy

FLORIDA PAIN & WELLNESS CENTERS, INC., (a/a/o Dennis P. Williams), Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 2015-SC-012571. November 16, 2017. Eric H. DuBois, Judge. Timothy A. Patrick, Patrick Law Group, Tampa, for Plaintiff.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER having come before the court on October 18, 2017 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court having considered both parties’ motions, arguments, applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, finds,

1. The sole issue in the case was whether the insured committed a material misrepresentation in the application for insurance by failing to list Dennis Williams as a household member in the application for insurance.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment argued that inasmuch as Dennis Williams never drive the insured vehicle, said omission was not material to the risk assumed under the policy of insurance. Plaintiff further argued that the application for insurance was ambiguous, causing it to be construed against the carrier.

3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment argued that the application for insurance was not ambiguous that the failure to list Dennis Williams as a household member was a material misrepresentation which was material to the risk assumed under said policy

4. This court agrees with the arguments presented in Plaintiff’s motion. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY GRANTED.

5. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY DENIED.

Skip to content