FLORENTINO CARRAZANA AND MARIA CARRAZANA, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, 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.
Florentino and Maria Carrazana appealed the dismissal of their declaratory judgment action against the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA), the statutory successor to their insurance company. The trial court dismissed their complaint challenging the validity of Maria's written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage, but the appellate court reversed, finding the complaint stated a valid cause of action for reformation of the policy.
The court held that the fourth amended complaint stated a cause of action and should not have been dismissed. The trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice.
[1] A complaint alleging that a rejection of uninsured motorist coverage was unknowingly and unintelligently made states a cause of action for reformation of the insurance po…
[2] A statutory successor to an insurance company may be subject to claims for uninsured motorist coverage.
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 intelligence“In our opinion, based upon the pleadings before the trial court at the time appellee's motion to dismiss with prejudice was granted, the fourth amended complaint stated a cause of action which should not have been dismissed.”
Establishes that the complaint adequately pleaded a valid cause of action and the dismissal was improper.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorentino Carrazana, a pedestrian, was struck and injured by an uninsured vehicle. At the time of the accident, Florentino was covered under an autom…
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 Reformation Of Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, bring this appeal from an order entered by the trial court dismissing their fourth amended complaint with prejudice.
While a pedestrian, appellant Florentino Carrazana was struck and injured by an uninsured vehicle. At the time of the accident, Florentino was covered by an automobile insurance policy which had been issued to his daughter-in-law, appellant Maria Carrazana, by Gateway Insurance Company. Appellee, Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, (FIGA) is the statutory successor to Gateway. See Chapter 631, Florida Statutes (1977). Approximately one year before the accident, Maria had renewed her policy and, allegedly, signed a written rejection of the uninsured motorist coverage (UIM) which she had previously carried. About two and one-half years after the accident, appellants made an UIM claim against FIGA which refused to arbitrate the matter. Thereafter, appellants filed a declaratory judgment action against appel-lee and in their fourth amended complaint alleged, among other things, that any rejection of UIM coverage by Maria was ineffective because it was unknowingly and unin- telligently made. Accordingly, appellants sought reformation of the policy to include such coverage.
In our opinion, based upon the pleadings before the trial court at the time appellee’s motion to dismiss with prejudice was granted, the fourth amended complaint stated a cause of action which should not have been dismissed. See, e. g., Raney v. Jimmie Diesel Corp., 362 So. 2d 997 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 338 So. 2d 37 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); and Weathers v. Mission Insurance Co., 258 So. 2d 277 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). See also § 627.727(1), Fla.Stat. (1977). Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
PEARSON, Judge
(dissenting).
In my view, the controlling question on this appeal is whether appellee Florida Insurance Guaranty Association is responsible for mistakes made by an insolvent insurer in issuing a policy, i. e., in failing properly to advise the policyholder prior to the policyholder’s signing a rejection of uninsured motorist coverage. I would hold that such conduct is not a “covered claim” as defined in Section 631.54(4), Florida Statutes (1977). See also Section 631.57(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1977). Admittedly, there is authority for the majority view that the Association stands in the shoes of the insolvent insurer. See Peoples v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, 313 So. 2d 40 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). I simply would hold that the statutory language must be confined only to the liability created by the provisions within the four corners of the insurance policy and that appellee Florida Insurance Guaranty Association “. . .is not vicariously liable for tortious acts of member insurers.” Rivera v. Southern American Fire Insurance Company, 361 So. 2d 193 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Teresita Fernandez v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 383 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…r statute, Section 627.428, Florida Statutes (1979); there is no equivalent statutory impediment [*976] to the application of § 631.66 to the situation before us. Moreover, Zinke-Smith, as well as Carrazana v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, 374 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and Martino v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, 383 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) all involved questions relating only to the liability of FIGA in its capacity as the entity deemed by Section 631.57(l)(b) Florida Statutes…
-
Williams v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 549 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…sary, clearly it limited recovery under Chapter 631 against FIGA to actual claims covered under a policy. See also FIGA v. Price, 450 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. dismissed, 453 So. 2d 1365 (Fla.1984). The Williamses argue that Carrazana v. FIGA, 374 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), supports their theory that FIGA can be liable under Chapter 631 for negligent deeds of an insurance agent who issues a policy. In Carrazana, the plaintiff alleged that the insured did not “knowingly and intentionally” make a reje…
Authorities Cited
- Weathers v. Mission Ins. Co., 258 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Raney v. Jimmie Diesel Corp., 362 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Darden, 338 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Peoples v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 313 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Rivera v. S. Am. Fire Ins. Co. & Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 361 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)