GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
ANNE BETTS MACKENZIE, EUGENE BETTS AND ELDA T. BETTS, 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.
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation appeals a judgment allowing the insured's daughter to stack uninsured motorist (UM) coverage from her father's two automobiles, resulting in $200,000 coverage rather than $100,000. The court affirmed, holding that the insurer failed to prove the insured rejected UM coverage equal to bodily injury limits when the policy was issued as a non-renewal policy.
The court held that MacKenzie was entitled to $200,000 in UM coverage. Because the insured's request for increased UM coverage constituted a change in coverage and premium, the policy was not a renewal policy under Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Sheffield, and therefore the insurer was required to inform the insured of his right to elect UM coverage equal to bodily injury limits. Since the insurer failed to prove the insured rejected this maximum UM coverage or knowingly chose lesser limits after being informed, the insured was entitled to the full UM coverage equal to his bodily injury limits.
[1] An insurer bears the burden of proving that an insured knowingly rejected maximum uninsured motorist coverage limits or knowingly chose lesser limits after being informed…
[2] The issuance of an automobile insurance policy with increased uninsured motorist coverage and a corresponding premium adjustment constitutes a new policy, not a renewal,…
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 a policy, which is not a "renewal" policy, is issued, an insured must be informed that he is entitled to (a) have UM coverage equal to the amount of bodily injury coverage, (b) reject any UM coverage, or (c) choose lesser limits of UM coverage”
Establishes the insurer's mandatory disclosure obligation under the Sheffield test for non-renewal policies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnne Betts MacKenzie was injured by an uninsured motorist. She sought to recover under the uninsured motorist coverage in her father's automobile insu…
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.
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant, General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., seeks reversal of a final judgment finding that appellee MacKenzie was entitled to stack the uninsured motorist coverage (UM) contained in her father’s automobile insurance policy covering two automobiles owned by him.
The main question presented is whether the UM coverage available is $100,000 or $200,000. The trial court found the latter coverage was available because the father’s bodily injury limits were $100,000/300,000 on each of his two automobiles. The court made the foregoing finding even though the UM coverage set forth in the policy was $50,000/100,000 on the date of the accident, basing its ruling that MacKenzie was entitled to UM coverage equal to the bodily injury coverage on the ground that the insurer did not prove the father had rejected UM coverage equal to the bodily injury coverage when the policy in effect at the time of the accident was issued. We think the trial judge ruled correctly on this issue.
In Hartford Ace. & Indem. Co. v. Sheffield, 375 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the court held that when a policy, which is not a “renewal”1 policy, is issued, an insured must be informed that he is entitled to (a) have UM coverage equal to the amount of bodily injury coverage, (b) reject any UM coverage, or (c) choose lesser limits of UM coverage; further the insurer could not rely upon the renewal exception contained in Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes, to obviate the necessity of obtaining a response from the insured as to which of the foregoing options he selected. Shortly before the policy in effect at the time of the accident was issued the insured requested an increase in his UM coverage from $25,000/50,-000 to $50,000/100,000. This changed the coverage and premium and thus, under the Sheffield case, issuance of this policy was not a renewal and the insurer was required to advise' the insured of his right to UM coverage equal to the bodily injury coverage. The burden of proof was on the insurer to prove the insured rejected the maximum limits of UM coverage available to him or that he knowingly chose lesser limits of UM coverage after being informed of his options. Since the insurer failed to prove such informed choice the trial court was correct in finding full coverage available to MacKenzie.
We have fully considered appellant’s other points on appeal and found them to be without merit.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, J., and PEARSON, DANIEL S., Associate Judge, concur. . This court has adopted the Sheffield test for determining whether an insurance policy is a new policy or a renewal policy. United States FideUty & Guaranty Co. v. Wain, 395 So. 2d 1211, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kauffman, 495 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…in a particular case is a question of fact. Kimbrell, 420 So. 2d at 1086. The burden of proof to show that there was a rejection and that it was an informed rejection rests with the insurer. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. MacKenzie, 410 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1982). However, no particular form of rejection is required nor is there a requirement that it be in writing. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Spencer, 397 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The signature of the…
-
Realin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 418 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…y to inform the applicant of the availability of the higher limits and to offer those limits to him. Spaulding v. American Fire & Indemnity Company, 412 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); General Accident Fire & Life Insurance Corporation v. MacKenzie, 410 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Lustig v. Colonial Penn Insurance Company, 406 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Travelers Insurance Company v. Spencer, supra; General Insurance Company of Florida v. Sutton, supra. “There can be no informed rejection in the abse…
-
Lane v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 432 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…requires that the insured know that he is entitled to UMI limits equal to the bodily injury limits of the policy. Spaulding v. American Fire & Indem. Co., 412 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. MacKenzie, 410 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The Supreme Court has recently confirmed the informed rejection requirement in Kimbrell v. Great American Ins. Co., supra. In the latter ease the Supreme Court also pointed out that whether a rejection of such coverage was an in…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Inez Sheffield, 375 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Waln, 395 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)