IRVING ZISOOK AND JEAN ZISOOK, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., 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.
Zisook appealed a summary judgment in favor of State Farm regarding uninsured motorist coverage limits. The trial court instructed the jury that a signature on an insurance application binds the party to its terms, but the appellate court reversed, holding that an informed rejection of uninsured motorist coverage cannot be implied solely from a signature without extrinsic evidence.
The court held that it was error to give a 'signature is binding' instruction in this context. An informed rejection of uninsured motorist coverage cannot, without extrinsic evidence, be implied from the insured's signature on the application for such coverage.
[1] A party who signs an insurance application is not bound by its terms if they did not knowingly select the coverage limits indicated.
[2] An informed rejection of uninsured motor vehicle coverage cannot be implied solely from an insured's signature on the application.
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“An informed rejection of uninsured motor vehicle coverage cannot, without extrinsic evidence, be implied from the insured's signature on the application for uninsured motor vehicle coverage.”
Establishes the key legal holding that signature alone cannot establish informed rejection of uninsured motorist coverage
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1977, Zisook applied for automobile insurance with State Farm. His written application, which he signed, showed bodily injury limits of $100,000/$3…
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 Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Zisook, the plaintiff below in a declaratory action involving uninsured motor vehicle limits, appeals a judgment in favor of State Farm. For the reasons which follow, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
In 1977 Zisook applied to State Farm for automobile insurance. The written application bearing his signature indicates bodily injury limits of $100,000/$300,000. The application also indicates a selection of uninsured motor vehicle limits lower than the bodily injury limits and indicates these uninsured motor vehicle limits to be $10,-000/$20,000. After sustaining injuries in a motor vehicle accident, Zisook sought a declaratory judgment that his uninsured motor vehicle limits were actually $100,-000/$300,000. A final summary judgment in favor of Zisook was reversed by this court. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Zisook, 393 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
At trial, Zisook contended that he had orally requested the higher limits but that, evidently, the State Farm agent’s secretary had mistakenly indicated on the written application the lower limits. The State Farm agent testified that, per normal office procedure, he had inquired as to Zisook’s insurance needs, explained the options and taken notes and passed these on to his secretary to complete the written application for Zisook to sign. The State Farm agent’s notes were entered into evidence and are reproduced here:
The trial court instructed the jury, over Zisook’s objection, “that a party who signs his name to an instrument is bound by the terms of the instrument and cannot deny the contents of the instrument on the grounds that he signed it without reading it, unless he shows facts indicating circumstances which prevented his reading it.” The jury rendered an interrogatory verdict, finding that Zisook knowingly selected uninsured motor vehicle limits of $10,000/$20,-000. Zisook argues that it was error for the trial court to give a “signature is binding” instruction. We agree. An informed rejection of uninsured motor vehicle coverage cannot, without extrinsic evidence, be implied from the insured’s signature on the application for uninsured motor vehicle coverage. American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Weingarten, 355 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 574 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…evidence, be implied from the insured’s signature on an application for uninsured motorist coverage to lower lim-its....” American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Weingarten, 355 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Zisook v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 440 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). An insured can be bound to a rejection of uninsured motorists coverage evidenced by a document signed by the insured, thereby entitling the issuing insurance company to a directed verdict on the issue of whether the insured knowi…
-
Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Marchesano, 482 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…act that the insurer maintains in its files evidence of an offer and a selection is relevant but not crucial to a finding that a knowing selection was made.” The Third District Court of Appeal in Zisook v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 440 So. 2d 452, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), said, “An informed rejection of uninsured motor vehicle coverage cannot, without extrinsic evidence, be implied from the insured’s signature on the application for uninsured motor vehicle coverage.” See also Aetna Casualty &…
-
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Vasquez, 483 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…im-brell, as it specifically noted, did not involve a written rejection and we deem that to be an important distinction. This question has been considered in several other instances. Notably, in Zisook v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 440 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the Third District appeared to recede from Alejano and Lopez holding that an “informed” rejection of UM coverage cannot, without extrinsic evidence, be implied from the insured’s signature on an application. Most recently this co…
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
- Am. Motorists INS. Co. v. Weingarten, 355 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- State v. Pita, 393 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)