BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID H. RAMIREZ, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, reversed a summary judgment, holding that an automobile insurance policy cancellation was effective even though the reason stated was not explicitly listed in the statute, because the policy had been in effect for less than sixty days. This decision clarifies the application of Florida Statute § 627.728(2) regarding early policy cancellations.
Yes, the cancellation was effective. Section 627.728(2) does not apply to policies in effect for less than sixty days, meaning the insurer is not restricted to the enumerated grounds for cancellation during this initial period.
[1] An automobile insurance policy cancellation is effective within sixty days of issuance, regardless of the reason stated, if the notice of cancellation is mailed or delive…
[2] The purpose of the statute precluding cancellation of casualty policies after sixty days except upon good cause does not apply to policies in effect for less than sixty d…
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“As we interpret this statute, Hanover was not required to give twenty (20) days’ notice of cancellation or to state a reason for the cancellation, since the mailing of the notice occurred within sixty days after the issuance of the policy ... By its own terms, subsection (2) does not apply because Hanover’s policy had been in effect less than sixty (60) days.”
This quote establishes the precedent that the statutory grounds for cancellation do not apply to policies under sixty days old.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Ramirez purchased an automobile insurance policy from Bankers Insurance Company with an effective date of October 20, 1989. On December 6, 1989,…
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 Insurance Policy Cancellation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers), appeals a final summary judgment. We reverse and remand.
Appellee, David Ramirez (Ramirez), purchased an automobile insurance policy from Bankers. The effective date for this policy was October 20, 1989. On December 6, 1989, Bankers mailed a notice of cancellation to Ramirez. The effective date of the cancellation was January 20, 1990.
On February 11, 1990, the subject automobile was damaged and Ramirez made a claim to Bankers. At this point, Ramirez was informed, he claims for the first time, that his policy was cancelled.
Ramirez sued Bankers, and subsequently moved for summary judgment. Ramirez argued that the cancellation was ineffective because the reason stated on the notice was not authorized by section 627.728(2), Florida Statutes (1989). The trial court granted Ramirez’s motion for summary judgment.
Bankers asserts that the cancellation was effective because section 627.728(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes an automobile insurer to cancel a policy for any reason, within sixty days of the policy’s issuance. Ramirez contends that section 627.728(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), does not grant insurance companies “carte blanche” to cancel policies within the first sixty days.
Section 627.728(2), Florida Statutes (1989), states:
(2) No notice of cancellation of a policy shall be effective unless it is based on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) Nonpayment of premium. (b) Material misrepresentation or fraud.
(c) The driver’s license or motor vehicle registration of the named insured or of any other operator who either resides in the same household or customarily operates an automobilé insured under the policy has been under suspension or revocation during the policy period or the 180 days immediately preceding its effective date or, if the policy is a renewal, during its policy period. This subsection shall not apply to any policy which has been in effect less than 60 days at the time notice of cancellation is mailed or delivered by the insurer unless it is a renewal policy. Nothing in this subsection shall apply to nonrenewal. [Emphasis added].
In Sauvageot v. Hanover Insurance Company, 808 So. 2d 583 (Fla.2d DCA 1975), this portion of the statute was construed:
As we interpret this statute, Hanover was not required to give twenty (20) days’ notice of cancellation or to state a reason for the cancellation, since the mailing of the notice occurred within sixty days after the issuance of the policy ... By its own terms, subsection (2) does not apply because Hanover’s policy had been in effect less than sixty (60) days.
Sauvageot, 308 So. 2d at 585. The court went on to reason that:
The obvious purpose of § [627.728(2) ] is to preclude the cancellation of certain types of casualty policies which have been in effect for more than sixty (60) days except upon good cause.
Sauvageot, 308 So. 2d at 585.
In this case, the policy in question was in effect for less than sixty days when the notice of cancellation was mailed. Thus, the cancellation was valid regardless of the reason.
Ramirez claims that Sauvageot does not apply because the statute has been amended since that decision. The relevant portion of the statute, as quoted by the Sauva-geot court from Chapter 70-213, Laws of Florida 1970, reads:
(2) No notice of cancellation of policy shall be effective unless it is based on one (1) or more of the following grounds:
(a) Nonpayment of premium; or
(b) Material misrepresentation or fraud; or
Ramirez argues that the legislature has amended the statute because the “(2)” after the word “subsection” does not appear in the more recent Florida Statutes. See § 627.728(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1989).
We note that when Chapter 70-213 was printed and published in the 1970 Supplement to Florida Statutes 1969, there were certain editorial omissions. See § 627.-0852(2). However, nowhere in the Laws of Florida has the legislature shown an intention to amend this statute.
We find that the cancellation in question complied with section 627.728(2), Florida Statutes (1989). Accordingly, we reverse' the summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sotomayor v. Seminole Cas. Ins. Co., 650 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…te because Seminole has an absolute right to cancel the policy for any reason within sixty days after issuance pursuant to section 627.728(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Even if this unfettered right to cancel exists, see Bankers Insurance Co. v. Ramirez, 597 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), it does not avoid the obligation on Seminole’s part to comply with the appropriate notice provision, which in this case is section 627.7282(1), and its own insurance contract. Seminole alternatively argues that even if its origi…
Authorities Cited
- Sauvageot v. The Hanover Ins. Co., 308 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)