LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE HERRERA AND ADELMA HERRERA, 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.
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company appealed a declaratory judgment invalidating personal injury protection (PIP) deductibles in an insurance policy sold to the Herreras. The court held that the insurer failed to satisfy its statutory duty to explain PIP deductibles, rendering the deductibles invalid when the insured had no other applicable insurance coverage.
PIP deductibles may not be sold and are invalid when the insured has no other duplicate insurance to cover the deductibles and the insurer has not provided the statutory explanation required by Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes. The subject Spanish document failed to satisfy the statutory duty because it did not indicate that PIP deductibles may be purchased only if the insured has other applicable insurance coverage under private or governmental disability plans.
[1] An insurer has a statutory duty to explain personal injury protection (PIP) deductibles to an applicant or policyholder.
[2] A document presented to an insured must clearly indicate that PIP deductibles may only be purchased if the insured has other applicable insurance coverage under private o…
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“We hold that this document fails to satisfy the statutory duty imposed upon the insurer to explain PIP deductibles under Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1981)”
Establishes that the Spanish-language document did not meet the statutory requirement to explain PIP deductibles
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLumbermens Mutual Casualty Company sold a PIP insurance policy with a $4,000 deductible to Jose and Adelma Herrera. The agent offered no oral explanat…
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 Declaratory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company appeals an adverse final judgment entered below in a declaratory decree action. The trial court declared that the personal injury protection deductibles were-invalid in the insurance policy which had been purchased by the insured Jose and Adelma Herrera from Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The record affirmatively establishes that the agent who sold the insurance policy to the Herreras offered no oral explanation concerning the PIP deductibles, that the Herreras had no other applicable coverage, and that the Herreras did not inform the agent of this fact. The insured Jose Herrera did, however, sign a Spanish document at the time he purchased the subject PIP insurance. Translated into English,1 this document reads: “According to the information which was given to you and instructions, we are processing an application, an insurance application for personal insurance protection, PIP, with a deductible of $4,000, which should be covered by you or by some other kind of insurance before the benefits of the PIP, before they start to be effective.” R. 31
We hold that this document fails to satisfy the statutory duty imposed upon the insurer to explain PIP deductibles under Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which reads:
“(1) Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, $6,000 and $8,000, said amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction, and shall explain to each applicant or policyholder that if they have coverage under private or governmental disability plans, they may avail themselves of deductibles or other modifications as provided in subsections (1), (2), and (3).” (emphasis added)
The subject document in no way indicates to the insured, as required by law, that he may purchase PIP deductibles only if he has other applicable insurance coverage under private or governmental disability plans which insures him to the extent of the PIP deductible amount. Moreover, no oral explanation of these PIP deductibles was ever given to the insured. Absent such an explanation as required by statute, it is clear that PIP deductibles may not be sold and that such deductibles are invalid when, as here, the insured has no other duplicate insurance to cover the said deductibles. See Kwechin v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 409 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The final judgment under review is, accordingly,
Affirmed.
. At his deposition, the insured Jose Herrera paraphrased, in Spanish, the Spanish-language document he had signed, and the translator rendered his words in English for the record. This is the only translation of that document presented in the record.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Optimio Alvarez, 443 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…urer failed to satisfy the duty imposed upon it by Section 627.-739, Florida Statutes (1979), to inform Alvarez that he could not avail himself of the deductible unless he had other applicable coverage. See Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Herrera, 439 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Kwechin v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 409 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), aff'd, 447 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.1983). Alvarez moved for summary judgment on liability, relying on his sworn unequivocal denial that the person who took hi…
-
Echevarria v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 447 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…hich security is required under ss. 627.730-627.7405; or b. Entitled to personal injury benefits from the insurer of the owner or owners of such a motor vehicle. . And its possible implications. See also, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Herrera, 439 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).…
-
Fortune Ins. Co. v. Theoria Sims, 464 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…hether the applicant’s collateral coverage includes all of these benefits, but only to advise the applicant that in order to avail himself of a deductible he must have “other applicable insurance coverage.” Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Herrera, 439 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 449 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1984). See also, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Alvarez, 443 So. 2d at 280; Bankers Insurance Co. v. Sosa, 448 So. 2d at 1182; Chapman v. Dillon, 415 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1982). We find this in…
Authorities Cited
- Kwechin v. Indus. Fire & Cas. Co., 409 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)