Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida answered a certified question concerning whether Florida's disability-insurance burden-of-proof rule is substantive or procedural for conflict-of-laws purposes. The court held that the rule is procedural and therefore answered the first certified question in the negative, declining to reach the second question concerning Florida public policy. The court also concluded that its discussion in Fruchter v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. was dicta because the writ of certiorari had been discharged as improvidently issued.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the burden-of-proof rule recognized in Fruchter v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. is part of Florida substantive law such that it would not apply when New York substantive law governs the contract under Florida's lex loci contractus doctrine.
- Whether requiring the insured to prove disability would violate Florida public policy so that the burden of proof must instead be placed on the insurer.
Holdings
- The burden of proof is procedural, not substantive, for Florida conflict-of-laws purposes. Accordingly, the burden-of-proof rule recognized in the Third District's Fruchter decision is not an element of Florida substantive law that would be displaced by New York substantive contract law.
- A discussion of the merits in an opinion discharging a certiorari writ as improvidently issued is dicta and does not establish binding Florida precedent.
Key quotations
“The burden of proof clearly concerns the means and methods to apply and enforce duties and rights under a contract and we find no reason to depart from this general rule for conflict-of-laws purposes.” (254-255)
“Thus, any discussion of the merits of the issue in Aetna Life Insurance Company, Inc. v. Fruchter, 283 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1973), is dicta.” (253)
Factual background
Audrey Shaps brought a federal action alleging two breaches of a disability insurance contract issued in New York. The jury found that she was not continuously disabled from September 10, 1990, through October 23, 1994, and rejected that claim. For the period from September 8, 1995, through April 6, 1996, the jury found continuous disability but denied relief because Shaps failed to comply with certain conditions precedent.
Procedural history
Shaps sued Provident Casualty in federal district court for alleged breaches of a disability insurance contract. A jury found that she was not continuously disabled during the first claimed period and that, although she was continuously disabled during a second period, she failed to satisfy conditions precedent; the district court entered final judgment for Provident. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit certified questions concerning the characterization and effect of Florida's disability-insurance burden-of-proof rule. The Florida Supreme Court answered the first question in the negative and declined to reach the second.