ROGER YOUNG AND AQUA SHIELD ROOFING, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1986-10-28
No. BK-143
BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.
496 So. 2d 232 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1986) Caution
Cited by 6 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

Aqua Shield Roofing appealed a workers' compensation order denying coverage based on Travelers Insurance's purported cancellation of the policy. The court reversed, holding that Travelers' cancellation notice was ineffective because it failed to comply with the statutory 30-day notice requirement under Florida law.


Holding

Travelers' cancellation notice was ineffective because it failed to comply with section 440.42(2), which requires at least 30 days to elapse after notice of cancellation before a policy can expire or be cancelled. The policy therefore remained in force and coverage was afforded despite the cancellation attempt.


Headnotes

[1] A notice of cancellation for an insurance policy is ineffective if it does not comply with statutory requirements regarding the notice period.

[2] An insurance policy remains in effect when the insurer's notice of cancellation fails to provide the statutorily mandated notice period.

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

“No contract or policy of insurance issued by a carrier ... shall expire or be cancelled until at least 30 days have elapsed after a notice of cancellation....”

Florida Statute section 440.42(2) establishing the mandatory 30-day notice requirement for policy cancellation

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

In August 1984, Travelers sent Aqua Shield a notice of cancellation purporting to terminate coverage immediately. Travelers continued billing Aqua Shi…

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
WENTWORTH, Judge.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant Aqua Shield seeks review of a workers’ compensation order by which it was determined that appellee Travelers had effectively cancelled its insurance policy and was thus not at risk for claimant’s injury. We find that Travelers’ purported cancellation was not effective, and we therefore reverse the order appealed.

In August 1984 Travelers furnished Aqua Shield with a notice of cancellation which purported to terminate its insurance coverage effective immediately. Travelers nevertheless continued to bill Aqua Shield for additional premiums, and Aqua Shield made payment in accordance with this bill. Travelers received such payment without objection or further notice to Aqua Shield. During the prior policy year Aqua Shield had cured a premium delinquency in this manner after notice of cancellation, and Travelers had reinstated coverage without further notice. A workers’ compensation claim was made for an injury alleged to have been sustained in December 1984, and Travelers relied on its August notice of cancellation to deny coverage.

Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes, provides that:

No contract or policy of insurance issued by a carrier ... shall expire or be can-celled until at least 30 days have elapsed after a notice of cancellation....

Although Travelers attempted by its August notice of cancellation to terminate coverage immediately, the deputy recognized that such immediate cancellation would not comply with section 440.42(2) and therefore deemed coverage to have expired thirty days after the notice of cancellation. However, in Peninsular Fire Insurance Co. v. King, 282 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), where a cancellation notice did not include the statutory thirty day provision, the purported cancellation was determined to be ineffective and coverage was afforded pursuant to the policy even though the claim was for an injury which occurred more than thirty days after the notice of cancellation. In accordance with Peninsular Fire, Travelers’ failure to comply with section 440.42(2) in the present case renders its notice of cancellation ineffective, so as to maintain coverage under the policy of insurance.1

The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded.

BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur. . We find it unnecessary to address Aqua Shield’s further assertion that Travelers should be estopped, by its unqualified acceptance of additional premiums, from denying coverage.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Curtis-Hale, Inc. v. Geltz, 610 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
    …more from the postmarked date, the notice failed to meet the requirements set forth in the statutes and rule governing WC policy cancellation. Employers Self Insurers Fund v. Torres, 565 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Young v. Travelers Insur. Co., 496 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Peninsular Fire Insur. Co. v. King, 282 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: “No contract or policy of insurance issued by a carrier under this chapter shall expire or be cancele…
    1 / 2
  • Emp'rs Self Insurers Fund & Claims Ctr. v. Torres, 565 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
    …30-day provision, the purported cancellation was ineffective and coverage was afforded pursuant to the policy even though the claim was for an injury that occurred more than 30 days after the notice of cancellation. In Young v. Travelers Ins. Co., 496 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the insurer furnished the employer with a notice of cancellation that purported to terminate its workers’ compensation insurance coverage effective immediately. A workers’ compensation claim was subsequently made for an injury t…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw