BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LUIS SOSA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1984-04-17
No. 82-2462
Before HENDRY, NESBITT and BAS-KIN, JJ.
448 So. 2d 1181 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Bankers Insurance Company appealed summary judgment entered in favor of insured Luis Sosa, who claimed the insurer breached its statutory duty under Florida Statutes § 627.739 by issuing a personal injury protection policy with an $8,000 deductible without first determining whether he had collateral coverage. The court reversed, finding a material factual dispute regarding whether the insurer complied with its statutory obligation to inquire about other insurance before offering a deductible.


Holding

Summary judgment was improperly entered because there is a material issue of fact regarding whether the insurer complied with the statutory requirement to inquire about collateral coverage. Sosa's deposition testimony that he must have been informed about the necessity of other insurance, combined with his signed form, constitutes an admission precluding summary judgment despite his contrary affidavit. Lopez's testimony that Sosa indicated he had other coverage available creates a factual dispute that must be resolved at trial.


Headnotes

[1] An insurer has a statutory duty to inquire whether a prospective insured has other coverage before offering personal injury protection deductibles.

[2] An insured's admission that they signed a form regarding deductibles can create a material issue of fact regarding compliance with statutory inquiry requirements, preclud…

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

Key Quotes

“The relevant statute, section 627.739, places the duty on the insurer to inquire whether the prospective insured has other coverage and only to offer personal injury protection deductibles to applicants with other coverage.”

Establishes the statutory duty of insurers regarding deductibles and collateral coverage inquiries.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Sosa applied for automobile insurance through Caribe Insurance Agency, represented by agent Lopez. Sosa signed a form regarding deductibles and other …

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.


Opinion of the Court
NESBITT, Judge.

NESBITT, Judge.

The sole issue for our resolution is whether summary judgment was improperly entered in favor of the insured finding that the insurer had breached its duty under section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1981) by issuing a personal injury protection policy which contained a deductible without first determining whether the insured had collateral coverage. We reverse.

Sosa applied to the Caribe Insurance Agency for insurance coverage on his automobile. The information pertaining to his insurance was taken by Lopez. In his deposition testimony, Sosa could not recall whether Lopez had asked him if he had other insurance or whether he had discussed PIP coverage and the deductible with Lopez, although he conceded that Lopez must have explained to him and showed him a form regarding deductibles since Sosa’s signature was on the form.1 Ultimately, Sosa was issued a policy by Bankers Insurance Company which contained an $8,000 deductible. An affidavit in support of Sosa’s motion for summary judgment indicated that at the time he. purchased insurance he neither had collateral insurance nor had anyone made inquiry of him concerning its existence.

The deposition testimony of Carlos Lopez was that he had asked Sosa whether he had other insurance and that Sosa replied that he was already covered, at which point Sosa signed the form regarding other insurance. During the coverage period, Sosa was involved in an accident. Bankers refused to pay for any damages below the $8,000 deductible amount which prompted the instant lawsuit. On the facts recited above, the insured moved for summary judgment arguing, under Kwechin v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 409 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), aff'd, 447 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.1983), that the deductible amount did not apply. The trial court found that Bankers made no inquiry and had no knowledge of whether the insured had other coverage which would have provided insurance in place of the $8,000 deductible in question.

The relevant statute, section 627.739, places the duty on the insurer to inquire whether the prospective insured has other coverage and only to offer personal injury protection deductibles to applicants with other coverage. In Kwechin, this court held that an insurer who failed to satisfy the requirements of this statute would be liable to the insured as if the policy contained no deductible.

We find that there is a material issue of fact as to whether the statute has been complied with in the present case. Sosa’s deposition testimony that he must have been informed of the necessity of other insurance since he signed the form is an admission which precludes summary judgment notwithstanding his affidavit in support of the summary judgment which stated that he was not informed. Additionally, Lopez’ testimony that Sosa told him he had other coverage available, if true, would have allowed Lopez to issue a policy with a deductible.

Reversed and remanded.

. The application form in part provided:

A WORD OF CAUTION: Most PIP is carried without a deductible of any amount, and deductibles are not recommended to those who do not have other coverages which will respond adequately for the payment of injuries in automobile accidents.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Gazie v. Ill. Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau, 534 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
    …So. 2d 12, 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cited in Kimbrell. Importantly, the responsibility of obtaining a knowing rejection is the insurer’s. Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Kwechin, 447 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.1983); Bankers Insurance Co. v. Sosa, 448 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Thus, the issue arises whether the legal requirement that a rejection form must be obtained by the insurer ipso facto creates an agency relationship between the excess insurer and the independent insurance agent. The one thing I…
  • Fortune Ins. Co. v. Theoria Sims, 464 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
    …inference by the trier of fact that the practice was followed on the particular occasion in question, notwithstanding that [the insured’s] testimony directly contradicts such an inference. 443 So. 2d at 281. See also, Bankers Insurance Co. v. Sosa, 448 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Cf. Industrial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Kwechin, 447 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.1983) (deductible invalid where insurance agent who wrote policy had actual knowledge that applicant had no collateral coverage). Appellant takes the posit…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw