EDNA A. BUNCH AND GOVAN BUNCH, HER HUSBAND,
v.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976), which precludes stacking uninsured motorist coverage, only applies to insurance contracts entered into after October 1, 1976.
[1] A statute restricting the stacking of uninsured motorist coverage applies only to insurance contracts entered into after its effective date.
[2] A trial court's dismissal of a complaint with prejudice may be reversed and remanded to allow amendment of pleadings regarding the effective dates of insurance contracts.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought uninsured motorist coverage from their insurer after settling with an at-fault driver. The insurer refused to stack coverage from tw…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stacking Of Insurance Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
Appellants, husband and wife, own separate automobile liability insurance policies issued by appellee which provide uninsured motorist coverage with $15,000/$30,000 limits of liability. The wife was involved in an automobile accident with James McKinney who was also insured with liability limits of $15,000/$30,000. Appellants settled with McKinney for $9,000 due to the numerous other claims against McKinney arising out of the accident in question. Appellants then sought further recovery against appel-lee under the underinsured motorist coverage contained in their two policies. When appellee refused to stack coverage on both policies this suit ensued.
Appellee moved to dismiss appellant’s complaint on the grounds that, in seeking to recover for an accident which occurred October 9, 1976, appellants were precluded by Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976) from stacking the uninsured motorist coverage of the two policies. The trial court granted said motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
The trial court did not have the benefit of the decision in Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla.1978), wherein the Supreme Court restricted the application of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976) to insurance contracts entered into after October 1, 1976, the effective date of the statute. It appears the policies in question were issued prior to October 1, 1976, although the pleadings are not clear on that point. We simply hold here, in accordance with Dewberry, if the policies in question were issued prior to October 1, 1976, Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976) is not applicable.
Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing the complaint with prejudice and remand the cause with directions to allow the appellants to amend their complaint to allege the effective dates of the insurance contracts in question, and for such other amendments as may be appropriate.
REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.
ANSTEAD, J., and WARREN, LAMAR (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Gray, 446 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass’n v. Johnson, 392 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Hausler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 374 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Bunch v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 370 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The renewal date is usually certain and definite and litigation rarely arises concerning whether statutes in effect bn the renewal date are applicable to the policy. It is generally accepted that they are. The difficult question…
-
Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Johnson, 392 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…titutionally impair this insurance contract. Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla.1978); Hausler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 374 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979); Bunch v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 370 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The term “stacking” is used to refer to two different instances of the adding together of insurance coverage. The original or traditional use of the term “stacking” refers to the combining together of the coverages on a number…
-
MAY v. State Farm Mut. Auto. INS. Co., 430 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…ewberry had paid for the right to stack at the time of renewal and could not legally be charged with notice of the anti-stacking statute prior to its effective date. This court followed Dewberry [*1001] in Bunch v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 370 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), a case involving similar facts. May’s case is distinguishable from Dewberry and Bunch because all of May’s policies were renewed after the effective date of the statute. By implication, the Dewberry case suggests that such poli…
Authorities Cited
- Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1978)