GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHNNIE SUTTON AND CYNTHIA SUTTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that an insured obtained uninsured motorist coverage where the insurer failed to clearly advise him of rejection and the policy face showed coverage included.
An insured receives uninsured motorist coverage when the insurer fails to clearly advise him that he is rejecting such coverage and the policy document itself shows coverage included.
[1] Under Florida Statutes section 627.727, uninsured motorist coverage must be offered to applicants, and where an insurer fails to clearly advise an applicant that he is re…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“His belief that he was obtaining the full coverage he requested was borne out by the face of the policy he was furnished, which showed uninsured motorist coverage.”
Court's explanation of why the insured reasonably believed he had uninsured motorist coverage despite any rejection language.
Johnnie Sutton signed an insurance contract at the direction of the appellant insurer's employee without being advised he was rejecting uninsured moto…
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 Rejection Of Uninsured Motorist Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
We affirm the Final Declaratory Judgment entered by the trial court which determined that appellees’ insurance policy afforded them uninsured motorist coverage. Our holding is predicated upon our determination that at the time appellee Johnnie Sutton signed the contract for insurance coverage at the direction of appellant’s employee, he was not advised that he was also rejecting uninsured motorist coverage. His belief that he was obtaining the full coverage he requested was borne out by the face of the policy he was furnished, which showed uninsured motorist coverage.
Although an insurance company is not required to explain uninsured motorist coverage to an applicant unless requested to do so by the applicant, Lopez v. Midwest Mutual Insurance Co., 223 So. 2d 550 (Fla.3d DCA 1969), and an applicant may not contest his signed rejection of coverage by contending that he signed the rejection without reading it, Alejano v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 378 So. 2d 104 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), under section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1971) uninsured motorist coverage must be offered. Fla.Admin.Code Rule 4-28.02 (repealed 1979). The documents under consideration fail to disclose that appellee was offered that coverage. Favored statutory construction upholds the furnishing of uninsured motorist coverage. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Sheffield, 375 So. 2d 598 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Inez Sheffield, 375 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Alejano v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 378 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Lopez v. Midwest Mut. Ins. Co., 223 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)