UNION GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ABEL LORENZO, 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.
Union General Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment and attorney's fees award in favor of Abel Lorenzo, who claimed personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under a policy issued to his mother. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statutory requirements governing liability insurers' denial of coverage do not apply to first-party PIP claims.
Section 627.426 applies only to liability insurers and does not restrict an insurer's ability to deny first-party PIP claims. The statute's clear language limits its application to 'liability insurers' and does not address first-party PIP coverage, so Union General's alleged non-compliance with the statute has no bearing on Lorenzo's first-party PIP claim.
[1] A liability insurer is statutorily precluded from denying coverage based on a particular coverage defense only if it fails to comply with specific procedural requirements…
[2] Statutory provisions governing the denial of coverage by liability insurers do not apply to first-party personal injury protection (PIP) claims.
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“A liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny coverage based on a particular coverage defense unless....”
The statute's plain language, which explicitly limits its application to 'liability insurers,' establishing that the statute does not apply to first-party PIP claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnion General issued an automobile insurance policy to Caridad Lorenzo that did not list her son, Abel Lorenzo, as a listed operator. Abel Lorenzo was…
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 Coverage Defenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Union General Insurance Company (Union General), appeals a final summary judgment and an order granting attorney’s fees. We reverse and remand.
Union General issued an automobile insurance policy to Caridad Lorenzo. Cari-dad Lorenzo did not list her son, appellee Abel Lorenzo (Lorenzo), on Union General’s policy. Subsequently, Lorenzo had an automobile accident and filed a claim against Union General for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits.
Union General denied Lorenzo’s claim because he was not a listed operator who lived in Caridad Lorenzo’s household. Lorenzo then sued Union General, alleging two counts: (1) a declaration of Lorenzo’s rights under the insurance contract; and (2) breach of contract in Union General’s failure to pay PIP benefits to Lorenzo.
After this suit was filed, a third party claimed damages against Caridad and Abel Lorenzo as a result of the accident. Union General defended the third party lawsuit under a full reservation of rights.
Lorenzo then filed a motion for summary judgment in his action against Union General, arguing that by denying PIP coverage, Union General had failed to comply with section 627.426, Florida Statutes (1991). The trial court granted the motion, stating:
This Court finds that as a matter of law, the defendant has failed to comply with the procedure set forth pursuant to Fla. Stat. 627.426, and is thus precluded from denying coverage to the plaintiff under the policy at issue in this case.
The trial court awarded Lorenzo a total of $51,000 in attorney’s fees, expert witness fee, and costs. On appeal, Union General asserts that because section 627.426, Florida Statutes (1991), only applies to liability insurers, the statute does not apply to its denial of Lorenzo’s first party PIP claim.
Lorenzo concedes that the statute does not directly apply to first party PIP coverage. Nonetheless, Lorenzo contends that because Florida law provides that an automobile liability policy may not be sold without PIP coverage, any defenses to coverage barred under the liability policy are also barred under the PIP coverage. We disagree.
Section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes (1991), states:
(2) A liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny coverage based on a particular coverage defense unless....
The clear language of this statute indicates that it only applies to “liability insurers.” The statute does not address first party PIP claims. Therefore, Union General’s alleged non-compliance with section 627.426(2) has no bearing on the first party PIP claim asserted by Lorenzo.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary judgment, award of attorney’s fees, expert witness fee, and costs, and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sternberg, 699 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…or 8. Retains independent counsel which is mutually agreeable to the parties. Reasonable fees for the counsel may be agreed upon between the parties or, if no agreement is reached, shall be set by the court. See Union General Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 598 So. 2d 161, 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“The clear language of this statute indicates that it only applies to ‘liability insurers’.”). The final judgment in favor of Sternberg is REVERSED. HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…