LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROOSEVELT WRIGHT, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1981-12-09
No. 80-1114
LETTS, C.J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.
406 So. 2d 1261 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1981) Caution
Cited by 16 cases

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.

Synopsis

Liberty Mutual appealed a summary judgment finding it owed uninsured motorist coverage to Roosevelt Wright, an employee-driver of the policy's named insured, Alpine Motors, Inc. The court reversed, holding that where both the insurer and named insured agree uninsured motorist coverage was rejected, a written rejection is not required under Florida law.


Holding

A written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage is not required where there is no dispute between the insurance carrier and the named insured regarding the absence of coverage. Wright, as a stranger to the policy negotiations, cannot insist on a written rejection when both Alpine Motors and Liberty Mutual maintained that uninsured motorist coverage was rejected.


Headnotes

[1] A written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage is not required when the named insured and the insurer agree that coverage was rejected.

[2] A third party, who is a stranger to the insurance policy negotiations, cannot insist on a written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage when the named insured and insu…

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

Key Quotes

“Section 627.727(1) Florida Statutes (1975), requires an insurance carrier to write uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to the level of liability insurance coverage selected unless the named insured rejects such uninsured motorist coverage.”

Establishes the statutory requirement for uninsured motorist coverage and the exception for rejection

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Liberty Mutual issued an insurance policy to Alpine Motors, Inc. for the period May 15, 1976 to May 15, 1977, providing $250,000/$500,000 liability co…

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.


Opinion of the Court
MOORE, Judge.

MOORE, Judge.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the defendant below, appeals from a final summary judgment in a declaratory action determining that it provided uninsured motorist coverage for injuries sustained by Roosevelt Wright, the appellee, in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist. Liberty Mutual had issued an insurance policy to Alpine Motors, Inc., the owner of the vehicle driven by Wright. The trial court granted the summary judgment because Liberty Mutual failed to maintain in its files a written rejection of uninsured motor-, ist coverage. We reverse because a written rejection, under the facts of this case, is unnecessary.

Liberty Mutual had issued a policy of insurance to Alpine Motors, affording it $250,000/$500,000 liability coverage for the one year period between May 15, 1976 and May 15, 1977. The policy, as written, afforded no uninsured motorist coverage. On November 5, 1976, the automobile collision took place.

In her deposition, Louise Wilkins, a records custodian for Liberty Mutual, testified that she sent an uninsured motorist “rejection of insurance form” to Alpine’s comptroller on May 17, 1976. On June 7, 1976, she telephoned the comptroller concerning the rejection form. The comptroller told her that he had signed and returned the form the previous week. She did not, however, have the signed copy in her files. Nevertheless, the sales file contained the following letter from Alpine Motors, dated January 9, 1978:

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 1582 East Commercial Boulevard

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334

Gentlemen:

‘We (Alpine Motors, Inc.) rejected the uninsured motorist coverage as offered effective 5-15-76.

The attached uninsured motorist form is to replace the form that we signed on or about 5-15-76. Said form now misplaced.

It was our intent at that time to reject uninsured motorist coverage as of 5-15-76, and continuing throughout the term of our policy.’

Barbara H. Thompson

Barbara H. Thompson

Comptroller

Section 627.727(1) Florida Statutes (1975), requires an insurance carrier to write uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to the level of liability insurance coverage selected unless the named insured rejects such uninsured motorist coverage. Recently, this court held that where there is no dispute between the insurance carrier and the contracting insured as to the absence of coverage, a written rejection is not required. Del Prado v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 400 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In the present case, the named insured, Alpine Motors, Inc., as well as the insurer, maintained that uninsured motorist coverage was rejected. Consequently, Wright, a stranger to the negotiations leading to the policy, cannot insist on a written rejection.1 See Del Prado v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, supra.

The trial court, therefore, erred by finding uninsured motorist coverage due to the absence of a written rejection.

Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment.

REVERSED.

LETTS, C.J., and DOWNEY, J., concur. . This court in Del Prado did not rule on whether a rejection must be in writing where the named insured insists upon a written rejection. Consequently, we also find it unnecessary to reach that question in the present case.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Dorman K. Kimbrell v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 420 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1982)
    …rmed of such by the insurer. [*1089] Similarly, the fact that the insurer maintains in its files evidence of an offer and a selection is relevant but not crucial to a finding that a knowing selection was made. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wright, 406 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We therefore conclude that the trial judge was correct in submitting the question to the jury even though there was no evidence of a written selection of coverage limits. With regard to the evidentiary issue, we find there was…
  • Floyd v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 412 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
    …PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wright, 406 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Del Prado v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.…
  • Lane v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 432 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
    …ANSTEAD, Judge, dissenting: Because I can discern no meaningful distinction between this case and the cases of Del Prado v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wright, 406 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), wherein [*75] we concluded there was no coverage under circumstances similar to those involved herein, I must dissent. I agree with the majority’s holding, however, as to the $20,-000 coverage that actually existed on the date o…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw