MARIA REALIN AND JOSE REALIN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, 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.
This case addresses whether an insured's rejection of higher uninsured motorist coverage was legally valid under Florida law. The court reversed summary judgment for State Farm, holding that a rejection cannot be knowing when the insurer failed to inform the insured of the availability of higher limits and offer them as an option.
The court held that a rejection of higher uninsured motorist limits cannot be knowing without an informing offer of those higher limits. Because State Farm failed to inform Realin of the availability of higher uninsured motorist coverage or offer such limits to him, the rejection was not a valid knowing rejection.
[1] A rejection of higher uninsured motorist benefits must be knowing and informed.
[2] An insurer has a duty to inform an applicant of the availability of higher uninsured motorist limits and to offer those limits.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is apodictic that any rejection by the insured of the higher uninsured motorist limits must be a knowing one.”
Establishes the fundamental legal requirement that rejections must be knowing, not merely signed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJose Realin, who had difficulty communicating in English, purchased an auto insurance policy from State Farm in December 1975 with bodily injury liabi…
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 Fla. Stat. § 627.727(1) Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
A recurring question is whether the insured made a knowing rejection of the higher uninsured motorist benefits afforded by the policy issued, as is required by Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975). The trial court found, in this case, that he did and granted final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm). We disagree and reverse.
The insured, Jose Realin, has difficulty communicating in the English language. He purchased a tow truck in December of 1975, after which he applied for and obtained from State Farm an automobile insurance policy containing bodily injury liability limits of $50,000/$100,000 and uninsured motorist coverage of $15,000/$30,000. Section 627.727(1), supra, mandates that uninsured motorist coverage limits be no less than bodily injury liability limits, unless, and to the extent that, the higher uninsured motorist limits are rejected by the insured. When Realin’s policy was issued, no attempt was made to have him reject the higher uninsured motorist coverage. However, four days later, he received a “rejection form” in the mail, which he signed and returned by mail to State Farm. Realm's policy automatically renewed at six-month intervals on the identical terms and with the same premiums as in the original policy.1 After the first renewal, Realm’s wife received serious injuries as the result of an automobile collision with an underinsured tortfeasor. The Realins then sought a judgment declaring that the uninsured motorist limits in their policy were equal to the bodily injury liability limits.
It is apodictic that any rejection by the insured of the higher uninsured motorist limits must be a knowing one. Travelers Insurance Company v. Spencer, 397 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Darden, 338 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. dismissed, 353 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1977). State Farm argues, citing Alejano v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 378 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) and Lopez v. Midwest Mutual Insurance Company, 223 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), that Realin’s signature on the mailed form means that he is bound by its contents despite his apparent inability to understand them.
The so-called “rejection form” offered Realin two options — either reject uninsured motorist coverage completely, or elect the lower limits of liability stated in the policy. A check mark was placed in the box next to the option to elect lower limits.2 Obviously, the form did not inform Realm of the availability of the higher uninsured motorist limits, nor did it offer such limits to him. Furthermore, there was no evidence in the record or testimony from State Farm agents that Realin was at any time informed that he could obtain uninsured motorist coverage in an amount at least equal to the limits of the bodily injury liability.
Although an insurer has no duty to explain uninsured motorist coverage to an insurance applicant unless asked, General Insurance Company of Florida v. Sutton, 396 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Alejano v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, supra, there is a duty 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 absence of an informing offer.” Spaulding v. American Fire & Indemnity Company, 412 So. 2d at 371; Lustig v. Colonial Penn Insurance Company, 406 So. 2d at 544. State Farm failed to present any evidence of an informing offer. Therefore, its motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.
For the foregoing reasons, the final summary judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
. Consequently, we are not involved with a significant change requiring a new rejection such as that in Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Sheffield, 375 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
. It is not clear whether the mark was placed there by Realin or by someone at State Farm before the form was mailed out.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Marchesano, 482 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…testimony by the insured which could have [*424] been construed by the jury to say that at the time the insurance was purchased the insurer’s agent had, in contravention of the insurer’s statutory duty, see Realin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 418 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), failed to inform the insured of the availability of those higher limits and failed to offer those limits and that the insured did not know of them. The insurer argues that, although its agent did not recall the details of his con…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Eckert, 472 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…ient to sustain a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact was introduced, the trier of fact was required to assume the existence thereof. § 90.302, Fla.Stat. (1983). The trial court relied upon Realin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 418 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); however, that case is distinguishable in several particulars. The form used in Realin did not inform or offer the insured higher limits; it simply gave the insured two choices, either reject coverage completely or elect the lower…
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kauffman, 495 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…uninsured motorist coverage entirely or selected limits lower than the bodily injury liability limits of the policy for the insurance company to avoid liability. There must have been an “informed” rejection. Realin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 418 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). A rejection may be characterized as “informed” where the insured was advised by the insurer or otherwise knew that coverage was available with limits equal to those for bodily injury liability contained in the policy and either r…
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
- The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Spencer, 397 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- 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)
- Peri v. State, 412 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Darden, 338 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Lopez v. Midwest Mut. Ins. Co., 223 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Wade v. State, 396 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Anne Betts MacKENZIE, 410 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Lustig v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 406 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)