COMPASS INSURANCE COMPANY AND INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JUDY A. WOODARD AND ROBERT A. WOODARD, HER HUSBAND, 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.
Compass Insurance and International Insurance appealed a declaratory judgment that upheld uninsured motorist coverage equal to the liability limit despite a technical rejection by the named insured. The Fourth DCA reversed, holding that an injured employee-driver lacked standing to challenge the named insured's knowing choice of lower uninsured coverage limits.
The injured employee lacks standing to object to the named insured's knowing choice of uninsured coverage limits or procedural deficiencies in that selection. The uninsured motorist coverage is limited to $20,000 as chosen by the named insured, not the $1,000,000 liability limit.
[1] A permissive user of a vehicle lacks standing to challenge an insurance company's failure to comply with statutory notice requirements regarding uninsured motorist covera…
[2] A permissive user cannot claim uninsured motorist coverage equal to the liability limit if the named insured knowingly chose a lower limit, even if the insurer failed to…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 injured driver is a permissive user and has no standing to object to improper procedures surrounding knowing rejection by the named insured.”
Establishes the core holding that permissive users cannot challenge rejection or selection of uninsured coverage by the named insured.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA corporate employer (named insured) selected $20,000 in uninsured motorist coverage while maintaining $1,000,000 in bodily injury liability 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 Permissive User cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
Before us is yet another automobile accident case involving uninsured motorist coverage. The trial court held, by way of declaratory judgment, that the attempted rejection of such coverage did not comply with section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983), and that therefore uninsured coverage was available up to the limit of the liability coverage. We reverse.
The injured driver, who here defends the invocation of uninsured coverage equal to the bodily injury liability limit in the policy, is not the named insured. The insured is a corporate employer and the injured driver an employee. The corporate employer’s president testified that he knowingly selected the lower limit of $20,000 in uninsured coverage, aware of all his options and did so because he wanted to cut expenses. Nonetheless, the record reflects that there were technical deficiencies associated with the choice of the lower limit in the uninsured coverage because the insurance company failed to comply with the annual notice requirement set forth in the statute.
As we see it, the injured driver is a permissive user and has no standing to object to improper procedures surrounding knowing rejection by the named insured. We are bound by several Fourth District cases which have made that abundantly clear. Del Prado v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), pet. for review dismissed, 407 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1981); Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wright, 406 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 413 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982); and Kimbrell v. Great American Ins. Co., 428 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). More compellingly, the Supreme Court appears to have said the same thing in Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1982).
The injured driver argues that all of the foregoing cases are rejection cases, whereas the case at bar merely involves a failure by the insurance company to comply with the statutory annual notice provision. However, as we see it, the principle is the same. All of the cited cases involve (1) a named insured who knowingly chose not to have uninsured motorist coverage equal to the liability limit, and (2) a permissive user trying nevertheless to activate uninsured coverage equal to the liability limit. Likewise, in the case at bar, the named insured enthusiastically agrees it knowingly chose only $20,000 in uninsured coverage while the injured employee seeks to increase that coverage to $1,000,000.
In reaching our conclusion, we are not unaware of the facts set forth in the Supreme Court version of Kimbrell v. Great American Ins. Co., 420 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1982) which also featured an employee driver. However, the question of standing, for whatever reason, was apparently not at issue in that opinion. If we are mistaken, which in the light of Whitten v. Progressive Casualty we should not be, the Supreme Court can readily accept jurisdiction of this particular decision and reverse us.
Having thus concluded that the injured employee has no standing, there is no need for us to decide the other issues presented herein. This cause is reversed and remanded with instructions to enter an amended final declaratory judgment which limits the uninsured motorist coverage to $20,000.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith, 504 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…dress the significance of that omission. We agree with our sister court that permissive users, such as Smith, cannot complain of the insurer’s failure to comply with the annual notice requirement of section 627.727. Compass Insurance Co. v. Woodard, 489 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). See also Del Prado v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for review dismissed, 407 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.1981) (permissive user cannot complain of technical deficiencies in rejection of uninsured mo…
-
Almendral v. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co., 704 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…e unavailable under policy where city official testified he was aware of the availability of uninsured motorist coverage and made an affirmative rejection of it due to its cost), review denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1987); Compass Ins. Co. v. Woodard, 489 So. 2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA) (where the named insured knowingly elected not to have uninsured motorist coverage equal to the liability limits, a permissive user is precluded from activating uninsured motorist coverage equal to liability limit), review denie…
-
Gast v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 516 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…See DelPrado v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 400 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 407 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.1981); St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Smith, 504 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Compass Insurance Company v. Woodard, 489 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 500 So. 2d 546 (Fla.1986): Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Wright, 406 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), review denied, 413 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982); see also Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 410 So.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982)
- Dorman K. Kimbrell v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 420 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1982)
- del Prado v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 406 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Dorman K. Kimbrell v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 428 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Arencibia v. McINTIRE, 428 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)