Shaps v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: In a disability insurance dispute, the court resolved a conflict of laws question by holding that the burden of proof is a procedural issue governed by the law of the forum state, not a substantive issue governed by the state law controlling the contract.
Legal Significance: For conflict of laws purposes in Florida, the burden of proof is a procedural issue governed by the law of the forum, not a substantive issue governed by the law of the contract under the doctrine of lex loci contractus.
Shaps v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Audrey Shaps sued Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. in a Florida federal court for breach of a disability insurance contract. The contract was executed in New York. Under Florida’s conflict of laws doctrine of lex loci contractus, New York substantive law governed the contract’s interpretation. However, the parties disputed which state’s law governed the burden of proof for establishing continued disability. A Florida appellate rule, recognized in Fruchter v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., placed the burden on the insurer to prove that a previously established disability had ceased. The trial court declined to apply this rule, reasoning it was substantive and therefore superseded by New York law, and placed the burden on Shaps. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of Florida to determine whether the Fruchter burden-of-proof rule was substantive or procedural for conflict of laws purposes.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: For conflict of laws purposes, is the allocation of the burden of proof a substantive issue governed by the law of the place of contracting (lex loci contractus), or a procedural issue governed by the law of the forum?
The court held that the burden of proof is a procedural issue Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqui
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
For conflict of laws purposes, is the allocation of the burden of proof a substantive issue governed by the law of the place of contracting (lex loci contractus), or a procedural issue governed by the law of the forum?
Conclusion
This case provides a definitive classification of the burden of proof as Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation
Legal Rule
In Florida, for conflict of laws purposes, the burden of proof is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volup
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Florida addressed the certified question by first clarifying Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugi
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- For conflict-of-laws purposes in Florida, the burden of proof is a