KEVIN R. HAUSLER AND KAREN H. HAUSLER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 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 Hauslers sought uninsured motorist coverage under a State Farm automobile insurance policy for injuries sustained in a hit-and-run motorcycle accident. State Farm denied the claim based on Florida's anti-stacking statute enacted after the policy was issued, and the court reversed, holding that the statute cannot be retroactively applied to contracts formed before its effective date.
The anti-stacking statute cannot be retroactively applied to insurance contracts entered into before the statute's effective date. The controlling date is when the contract was formed, not when the triggering accident occurred, and the statute cannot impair the obligations of a contract formed before its enactment.
[1] A statute cannot be retroactively applied to alter the obligations of a contract if the statute was not in effect at the time the contract was entered into.
[2] A statute's effectiveness, for purposes of notice to contracting parties, begins on its effective date, not its enactment date.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“When Hausler and State Farm negotiated for and entered into the subject contract of insurance, its terms were set in accordance with the law in effect at that time which did not preclude stacking insurance coverage.”
Establishes that the contract terms are governed by the law in effect when the contract was formed, not when the accident occurred.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm issued an automobile insurance policy to Kevin Hausler on May 31, 1976, covering a 1971 Chevrolet and including uninsured motorist coverage…
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 Automobile Insurance Policy Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company issued and delivered an automobile insurance policy to Kevin Haus-ler on May 31, 1976. The policy insured, among other things, a 1971 Chevrolet owned by Hausler and further included a provision for uninsured motorist coverage. While operating his Kawasaki motorcycle, Hausler was involved in an accident with a hit and run motor vehicle. Hausler’s motorcycle was covered by a liability policy issued by another company. The motorcycle policy did not provide uninsured motorist benefits. Hausler filed, a claim with State Farm for payment of proceeds under the uninsured motorist provision of the Chevrolet policy. State Farm refused to honor the claim, asserting that Section 627.-4132, the anti-stacking provision of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, precluded recovery. The trial court entered a final order dismissing Hausler’s cause of action with prejudice. It is from this final order that Hausler appeals.
In their briefs the parties argue the issue of the definition of “vehicle” as used in Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977). We find that it is unnecessary to address this point because Section 627.4132 does not apply to .this case. The policy in question was issued and delivered a month before the governor signed Section 627.4132 into law and four months before it became effective on October 1, 1976. Although the accident which fostered this dispute occurred on March 15, 1977, it is not the accident date that controls.
When Hausler and State Farm negotiated for and entered into the subject contract of insurance, its terms were set in accordance with the law in effect at that time which did not preclude stacking insurance coverage. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. White, 330 So. 2d 858 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Neither party was on notice of the limitations soon to be imposed by Section 627.4132.
Article I, Section 10, of the Florida Constitution prohibits the legislature from passing any law which impairs the obligation of a contract. In other words, where the statute in question was not in effect at the time of contracting, it cannot be retroactively applied to alter the obligations of that contract. This is true even though the act which triggers the obligation occurs after the statute is enacted.
Our supreme court stated the rule in Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.:
. The citizens of this State cannot be charged reasonably with notice of the consequences of impending legislation before the effective date of that legislation, for it is generally accepted that a statute speaks from the time it goes into effect . . . Today we reaffirm this general rule and find that appellant was placed on notice of the effectiveness of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), only as of October 1, 1976.
363 So. 2d 1077, 1080 (Fla.1978) (citations omitted). For the reasons stated, we reverse the final judgment dismissing appellants’ cause of action and remand the cause for further action consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Menendez v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., Inc., 35 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2010)…Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (holding that a liability policy is governed by the law in effect at the time the policy is issued, not the law in effect at the time a claim arises); Hausler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 374 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (holding that the date of the accident does not determine the law that is applicable to a dispute). The crux of the statutory presuit notice provision is the requirement of filing a notice of intent to litigate, originally…
-
Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Gray, 446 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla.1978); Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Ceballos, 440 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 applica…
-
Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Johnson, 392 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…76, before the effective date of the statute, and to apply the statute would unconstitutionally 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…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1978)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Newton F. White, 330 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)