PATRICIA V. TARLTON, APPELLANT,
v.
DIXIE INSURANCE 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.
An insured's rejection of uninsured motorist coverage is valid even if the rejection form is on only one of two simultaneously issued policies, provided the insured was aware that higher limits were available.
[1] An insurer satisfies the requirement to offer uninsured motorist coverage at limits up to the bodily injury liability limits when the offer is made on one of two simultan…
[2] An applicant's knowing rejection of uninsured motorist coverage on one policy application is sufficient to preclude coverage under that policy, even if the applicant late…
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 intelligencePatricia Tarlton obtained two automobile insurance policies from Dixie Insurance Company. She signed a form rejecting uninsured motorist (UM) coverage…
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 Rejection Of Insurance Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
Patricia Tarlton obtained automobile bodily injury liability coverage from Dixie Insurance Company with limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence. For underwriting purposes, Dixie issued two policies. The first policy carried bodily injury limits of $10,000/$20,000 and uninsured motorist limits in the same amount. The second policy, being an excess policy, provided bodily injury limits of $90,000/ $280,000 but no uninsured motorist coverage. As part of the application for the first policy, Ms. Tarlton signed a form explaining that section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1979), required insurers to make available uninsured motorist coverage at limits up to $100,000/$300,000 and acknowledging that she had rejected the offer of such coverage. The application for the second policy signed on the same date simply stated that the applicant had rejected uninsured motorist coverage.
Subsequent to the issuance of the policies, Ms. Tarlton was injured in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist. Upon Dixie’s insistence that her uninsured motorist coverage was limited to $10,-000/$20,000, she sued for declaratory judgment. The court entered summary judgment for Dixie with the observation that “plaintiff knowingly rejected an informed offer of uninsured motorist coverage to the appropriate limits of the two policies simultaneously offered by the defendant.” We affirm.
Ms. Tarlton’s reliance upon the omission of a statement reflecting an offer of higher uninsured motorist limits on the second policy application is misplaced. She cannot argue that she was unaware that higher coverage was available because the application for the first policy clearly included an offer of the requisite limits. See American Fire & Indemnity Co. v. Spaulding, 442 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1983). Unlike the cases relied upon by Ms. Tarlton, there was an affirmative rejection of uninsured motorist insurance in the application for the second policy under which she now seeks coverage.
AFFIRMED.
SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Noaker v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co. & Great Sw. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 468 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…emnity Co. v. Spaulding, 442 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1983), an effective rejection of additional uninsured motorist coverage generally requires that the insured be aware of the availability of higher coverage limits. See also Tarlton v. Dixie Insurance Co., 450 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). However, an insurance broker, as agent for the insured, is authorized to reject the additional uninsured motorist coverage. Acquesta v. Industrial Fire and Casualty Co., 467 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1985). The insured is bound by the rep…
-
Hartford Ins. Co. OF the Se. v. Pearson, 495 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…surance Co. v. Spencer, 397 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). To meet this requirement the insured must be made aware of his options, including the availability of UM coverage in an amount equal to his liability limits. Tarlton v. Dixie Insurance Co., 450 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Lane v. Waste Management, Inc., 432, So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 441 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1983). Whether an insured has made an effective rejection under the above-cited authority is a fact question in which the insurer has…
-
Banack v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n Inc., 467 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…t knowledge of the available coverage is all that an insurer must show. In Spaulding, the court also reaffirmed that whether there was knowledge was for the trier of fact. This decision was followed in the recent Tarlton v. Dixie Insurance Company, 450 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), which is closest factually to the current case, because it involved an excess coverage policy. The insured in Tarlton had carried a low uninsured motorist limit in connection with her liability policy, and had no uninsured motori…
Authorities Cited
- Am. Fire & Indem. Co. v. Spaulding, 442 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1983)