SANDRA L. COTE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD E. COTE, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN FIRE & 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.
The court held that when a policyholder adds vehicles to a fleet liability policy, this does not constitute a material policy variation requiring a new rejection of uninsured motorist coverage. The insured's original election of $10,000 uninsured motorist coverage remained valid despite the later addition of two vehicles to the policy.
The addition of new vehicles to a fleet liability policy is not a material variation of the policy that requires a new rejection of uninsured motorist coverage. Therefore, the insured's original election of $10,000 uninsured motorist coverage remained valid despite the subsequent addition of vehicles.
[1] The addition of a new vehicle to a fleet liability policy does not constitute a material variation requiring a new rejection of uninsured motorist coverage.
[2] An insured's initial rejection of higher uninsured motorist coverage limits remains effective for a fleet policy even when vehicles are added, absent a new rejection.
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“the addition of a new vehicle to a fleet liability policy is not a material variation of the policy which requires a new rejection of uninsured motorist coverage”
This is the court's central holding, establishing the rule that fleet policies are distinguished from individual vehicle policies because they contemplate frequent changes in vehicles.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald E. Cote purchased an automobile liability policy from American Fire & Casualty Company on March 20, 1978, electing $10,000 uninsured motorist c…
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 Underinsured Motorist Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
When appellant’s decedent first purchased his automobile liability policy from appellee on March 20, 1978, he elected to obtain $10,000 uninsured motorist coverage and rejected higher limits. Eleven months later, he was killed in an accident caused by the negligence of a third party motorist. With appellee’s permission, appellant settled her claim against the third party for his liability insurance limits of $25,000. She now claims entitlement to underinsured motorist benefits to the extent of the decedent’s $100,000 liability limits because in the interim he added two vehicles to his policy without specifically rejecting the higher uninsured motorist limits. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977), specified that every automobile liability policy issued in the state should contain uninsured motorist coverage of comparable limits unless rejected by the insured but provided that a new rejection need not be given when the policy was renewed. At present, there is a split of authority over whether the addition of a vehicle to existing coverage constitutes such a variation of the policy as to require a new rejection of higher uninsured motorist limits. Compare Spaulding v. American Fire & Indemnity Co., 412 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (rejection required) with Sentry Insurance A Mutual Co. v. McGowan, 425 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (no rejection required).
However, we need not join issue in this dispute. Here, the decedent’s policy provided fleet coverage which contemplated frequent changes in the insured vehicles.
Thus, the case falls more nearly within the rationale of Maxwell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 399 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
We hold that the addition of a new vehicle to a fleet liability policy is not a material variation of the policy which requires a new rejection of uninsured motorist coverage.
AFFIRMED.
DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhodes v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 437 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…thority of Maxwell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 399 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), which is factually similar to the instant case and which contains what we believe to be sound reasoning. See also Cote v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 433 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Maxwell placed emphasis upon the fact that the policy in that case was called a “fleet policy.” The policy in the present case was not called a “fleet policy,” but did cover approximately 30 vehicles. Under the facts of this cas…
Authorities Cited
- Peri v. State, 412 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Sentry Ins. A Mut. Co. v. McGOWAN, 425 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Maxwell v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 399 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)