STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD MONACELLI, 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.
State Farm appeals a jury verdict finding that Ronald Monacelli did not reject uninsured motorist coverage on his motorcycle policy. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that uninsured motorist coverage may be rejected through an authorized agent, particularly where written rejection was not required in 1979.
The trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that uninsured motorist coverage may be rejected through an authorized agent. At the time of the discussion in 1979, no written rejection was required under Florida law.
[1] Uninsured motorist coverage may be rejected by an insured or by an agent acting on behalf of the insured.
[2] At the time of the policy discussion in 1979, a written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage was not required.
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“the rejection of uninsured motorist coverage may be done through an agent, Acquesta v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 467 So.2d 284 (Fla.1985)”
Establishes the legal principle that uninsured motorist coverage rejection can be effectuated by an authorized agent, not just the insured directly.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Monacelli held a motorcycle insurance policy with State Farm. Monacelli's father, acting with authority on Ronald's behalf, orally discussed un…
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.
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict determining that the insured, Ronald Monacelli, had not rejected uninsured motorist coverage.
At trial, State Farm adduced ample evidence to support its claim that Ronald Monacelli’s father was authorized to act on Ronald’s behalf and, with such authority, orally rejected uninsured motorist coverage in a discussion with a State Farm agent concerning the subject policy covering Ronald’s motorcycle. Despite this, the trial court refused to instruct the jury upon State Farm’s request, that uninsured motorist coverage could be rejected by the insured or by someone acting as agent for the insured, in this case Ronald Monacelli’s father.1 This failure to instruct the jury in accordance with State Farm’s request forms the sole basis of State Farm’s appeal.
Because (1) the rejection of uninsured motorist coverage may be done through an agent, Acquesta v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 467 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1985), and (2) at the time of the discussion between Ronald’s father and the State Farm agent— 1979 — a written rejection was not required, Kimbrell v. Great American Insurance Co., 420 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1982), the failure to instruct the jury as State Farm requested is reversible error. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. Monacelli argues that since the request was not in writing, the trial court cannot be faulted for denying it. However, there is not the slightest indication that the trial court denied the requested instruction for the reason that it was oral, and it is obvious .that the judge denied the request on the merits. Counsel is not required to engage in the "totally useless and therefore unnecessary act" of submitting a formal affirmative request for an instruction which the trial court has already stated it would not give. Corbett v. Dade County Board of Public Instruction, 372 So. 2d 971, 974-75 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.1980). See also Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Estate of Guzman, 421 So. 2d 597, 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (“[n]o purpose would have been served by requiring the lawyer to file a written request for an instruction which the judge already stated she would not give”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morowitz v. Vistaview Apts., Ltd., 613 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…98 So. 2d 1362, 1364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Jackson v. Harsco Corp., 364 So. 2d 808, 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 72 (Fla.1979), we have previously recognized exceptions to this rule. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Monacelli, 486 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 3d DCA) (no need to submit written request where judge has ruled on merits of oral request), review denied, 496 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1986); Corbett v. Dade County Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 372 So. 2d 971, 974-975 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same),…
Authorities Cited
- Dorman K. Kimbrell v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 420 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1982)
- The Ins. Co. OF the State OF Pa. v. The Est. OF Frank Guzman, 421 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Acquesta v. Indus. Fire & Cas. Co., 467 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1985)
- Corbett v. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction, 372 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Fort Walton Roofing & Maint. Co., Inc. v. The Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 372 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)