JAMES P. FERRIGNO AND JUDITH FERRIGNO, APPELLANTS,
v.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN 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 court reversed a summary judgment for an auto insurer, holding that the insurer had a statutory obligation to notify insureds of uninsured motorist coverage options as of October 1, 1980, regardless of whether the Department of Insurance had yet approved the form of notice. The insurer's failure to provide notice at the time of policy renewal entitled the insureds to relief.
The insurer was obligated to provide statutory notice to insureds on and after October 1, 1980. The failure to obtain Department approval of the notice form was irrelevant to the insurer's obligation. The insurer's failure to notify the Ferrignes at their November 14, 1980 policy renewal entitled them to relief.
[1] Automobile liability insurers are required to notify their insureds at least annually of uninsured motorist coverage options.
[2] The statutory requirement for insurers to notify insureds of uninsured motorist coverage options is a remedial statute that must be liberally construed.
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“uninsured motorist coverage may be the only meaningful protection available to Floridians who daily are subjected to misguided missies on the highways of this state; therefore, this remedial statute must be broadly and liberally construed”
Establishes the principle that uninsured motorist coverage statutes must be interpreted broadly as remedial legislation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1980, the Florida Legislature amended section 627.727 to require automobile liability insurers to notify insureds annually of uninsured motorist 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Liberal Construction Of Remedial Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of the insurer. We reverse and remand with direction to enter final judgment for the insureds.
In 1980 the Legislature amended section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp.1980), by requiring automobile liability insurers to notify their insureds, at least annually, of the options as to uninsured motorist coverage available pursuant to the statute. The amendment further provided:
Such notice shall be part of the notice of premium, shall provide for a means to allow the insured to request such coverage and shall be given in a manner approved by the Department of Insurance.
The amendment was approved by the Governor on July 9, 1980, was filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on the following day and took effect on October 1, 1980.
The trial court apparently agreed with the insurer that its obligation was to notify appellants within one year of the effective date of the statute; and that the failure of the Department of Insurance to approve appellee’s proposed form of notice until June 17, 1981, precluded any obligation to notify its insurers prior to the date its form was approved.
Appellants, on the other hand, contend that the insurer was obligated to provide the statutory notice to its insureds on and after October 1, 1980; that the failure of the insurer to obtain approval of its form was irrelevant; and that the failure of the insurer to notify appellants of their option when their policy was renewed on November 14, 1980, entitled them to relief against their insurer because of injuries they received when a vehicle operated by an uninsured motorist struck their vehicle on March 24, 1981.
We agree with appellants for two reasons. First, uninsured motorist coverage may be the only meaningful protection available to Floridians who daily are subjected to misguided missies on the highways of this state; therefore, this remedial statute must be broadly and liberally construed. See First State Insurance Co. v. Stubbs, 418 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Weathers v. Mission Insurance Co., 258 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Second, we consider the “manner approved by the Department of Insurance” to be the tail and the notice to the insureds to be the dog. The insurer knew in early July of the amendment’s effectiveness as of October 1, 1980; and we would be naive to believe that early July was its first knowledge of the legislation. It was undoubtedly the intent of the Legislature that the insurer be ready to comply with the amendment by October 1 so that its insureds would be made aware of the options available to them when their policy was annually renewed on and after that date.
HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
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)…fication of an insured’s uninsured motorist coverage options be sent with premium notices. Those reports do not manifest any legislative intent contrary to that which is perceived in this opinion. . In Ferrigno v. Progressive American Insurance Co. 426 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) and Ruiz v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 441 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), insurers had failed to comply with the statutory mandate to send the notification. Insureds in those cases prevailed against the insur…
-
W. Am. Ins. Co. & the Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Lloyd, 460 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. We affirm on the authority of Ferrigno v. Progressive American Insurance Co., 426 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); First State Insurance Co. v. Stubbs, 418 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Ruiz v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 441 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983). DOWNEY, LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.…
-
Schijtt v. Atlanta Cas. Cos., 682 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…sible protection to the injured party from the negligence of uninsured motorists, requiring a liberal construction to accomplish this purpose. Salas v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 272 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1973); Ferrigno v. Progressive American Ins. Co., 426 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Similarly, it is well established that a contract of insurance should be construed so as to give effect to the intent of the parties and when there are uncertain or ambiguous terms in a policy they should be construed against th…
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
- Weathers v. Mission Ins. Co., 258 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- First State Ins. Co. v. Stubbs, 418 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)