JORGE CALLARD, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, 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 held that competent and substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the employer had implicitly rejected higher uninsured motorist coverage, even without a formal written rejection.
An employee was injured and awarded damages in arbitration. The employer's insurer filed a declaratory relief action seeking to limit uninsured motori…
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 Action For Declaratory Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jorge Callard suffered injuries in an accident while operating a vehicle in the course and scope of his employment at Baker Industries/Wells Fargo. National Union Fire Insurance Company, Baker’s insurer, filed this declaratory relief action seeking a judgment that the amount of coverage provided by its uninsured motorist (UM) policy was only $20,000.
Mr. Callard proceeded to arbitrate his claim and was awarded $90,834. Subsequently, argument was heard on National Union’s motion for summary judgment. Based on factual stipulations by National Union and testimony by Gary Gillham, Baker’s Director of Risk Management, the trial court ruled that the insurance policy afforded $20,000 in UM coverage and entered a summary judgment for National Union which reduced the arbitration award accordingly.
Callard appeals claiming that the insured/employer was unable to produce evidence of a formal written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage above $20,000. However, there is competent and substantial evidence that Baker was aware of, and had implicitly rejected, the option to purchase greater coverage. See Del Prado v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.1981); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 406 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 413 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982). The statement of the employer’s agent, that there was no written rejection of coverage above the $20,000 amount thought to be statutorily required, did not create a genuine issue of fact on the “knowing rejection” issue.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Almendral v. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co., 704 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…Co., 410 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla.1982) (valid rejection of uninsured motorist coverage by named insured in the policy is binding on principle operator of the vehicle and any additional named insured in policy); Callard v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 556 So. 2d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (where the insured/employer knowingly rejected option to purchase greater coverage limits of uninsured motorist insurance, employee precluded from recovering in excess of policy limits); St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v.…
-
Bethel v. Reliance Ins. Co., 590 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…n the “knowing rejection” question by showing, as countervailing evidence, only that there was no written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage equal to the amount of liability when the policy was renewed. Callard v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 556 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We do not reach the choice of law issue because it is clear that the result would be the same under Ohio law. See Poots v. Motorist Ins. Cos., 38 Ohio App.3d 48, 526 N.E. 2d 71 (1986). The summary judgment entered for the carri…
Authorities Cited
- 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)