RANDALL SAPIENZA, APPELLANT,
v.
SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, 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.
The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of a complaint for arbitration of uninsured motorist benefits under a garage keepers policy, holding that the substance of the policy, not its title, determines whether section 627.727 applies, and garage keepers policies covering motor vehicle liability must comply with uninsured motorist coverage requirements.
The substance of an insurance policy, not its title, determines whether uninsured motorist coverage under section 627.727, Florida Statutes applies, and a garage keepers policy covering motor vehicle liability must provide such coverage.
[1] The substance of an insurance policy, rather than its title or classification, determines whether uninsured motorist coverage under section 627.727, Florida Statutes is r…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It is the substance of the policy and not the title which controls whether or not section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987), applies.”
The court established the controlling principle for determining applicability of uninsured motorist coverage requirements.
Sapienza sought arbitration on uninsured motorist benefits under a garage keepers policy issued by Security Insurance Company of Hartford. The insurer…
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 Substance Over Form Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order of the trial court granting appellee’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Appellant’s complaint was for arbitration on uninsured motorist benefits under a garage keepers policy. Appellee moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that a garage keepers policy does not fall within the statutory mandates of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987), providing for uninsured motorist coverage. However, in Coleman v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, 517 So. 2d 686 (Fla.1988), the supreme court considered a garage keeper’s policy of insurance and determined that uninsured motorist coverage under section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987), was afforded. It is the substance of the policy and not the title which controls whether or not section 627.-727, Florida Statutes (1987), applies. See Chicago Insurance Company v. Dominguez, 420 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Fulton, 362 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
The garage keepers policy covers liability for motor vehicle accidents. Therefore, compliance with section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987), was required. Chicago Insurance Company.
Reversed and remanded to reinstate plaintiff’s complaint and for further proceedings thereon.
HERSEY, C.J., and STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sec. Ins. Co. OF Hartford v. Sapienza, 596 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…d time this case has been before us. On the first occasion, we held that although the policy contained no uninsured motorist provision, compliance with section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987) was required. Sapienza v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 543 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 557 So. 2d 867 (Fla.1989). Upon remand, the trial court ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration, and once again, we find reversible error. The policy in question does not contain an arbitration clause and, under…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Palacino, 562 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…hat this court decided Barlow v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 358 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), followed in the majority opinion, prior to the supreme court opinion in Boynton. I would follow Jernigan. See also Sapienza v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 543 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 557 So. 2d 867 (1989); Bryan v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 545 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).…
-
Burlington Ins. v. Asturias USA Motorsports Co., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D. Fla. 2005)…In that case, the court noted that uninsured motorist coverage must be afforded in the state of Florida and the State’s policy should not be “whittled away by exclusions or exceptions.” Id.; see also Sapienza v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 543 So.2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (holding that because the garage keepers policy covered liability for motor vehicle accidents compliance with § 627.727 was required). Similarly, in the instant case, the policy was a garage insurance policy that covered a specif…
Authorities Cited
- Coleman v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 517 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1988)
- Chicago Ins. Co. v. Jose C. Dominguez, M.D., 420 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fulton, 362 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)