GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY AND CIGNA PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
GEICO appeals a determination that Ford Motor Credit's insurance, rather than the lessee's insurance, is primary under a vehicle lease agreement. The court held that the lease's notice provision failed to comply with Florida Statute 627.7263 because it did not adequately inform the lessee that the statute normally makes the lessor's insurance primary and that the parties were contractually modifying that requirement.
The lease notice provision did not comply with section 627.7263. The statute requires not only bold-type notice that the lessee's insurance will be primary, but also that the lessee be informed of the statutory provisions in subsection (1) and that the lessee is contracting to assume a responsibility not otherwise required by law. The lessor's insurance is therefore primary.
[1] A rental or lease agreement must contain a bold-type provision informing the lessee that the lessor's insurance is primary unless otherwise stated, and provide a space fo…
[2] A notice in a motor vehicle lease informing the lessee that their insurance shall be primary does not comply with statutory requirements if it fails to inform the lessee…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“There is nothing in this notice "informing the lessee of the provisions of subsection (1)" of the statute. Nor does the notice inform the lessee that she was contracting to pay for what the statute requires the lessor to provide.”
Establishes the court's central holding that the notice failed to meet statutory requirements by not informing the lessee of the statute's provisions or that they were contracting for an obligation not otherwise required by law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFord Motor Credit leased a motor vehicle to a lessee insured by GEICO. The lease contained a notice provision in bold type stating that the lessee's o…
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 Primary Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
This case involves the issue of whether the notice in an automobile lease complied with section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1984), so as to make lessee’s insurer primary. Section 627.7263 provided:
(1) The valid and collectible insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement. Such insurance shall be primary for the limits of liability, and personal injury protection coverage as required by § 324.-029(7) and § 627.736.
(2) Each rental or lease agreement between the lessee and the lessor shall contain a provision on the face of the agreement, stated in bold type, informing the lessee of the provisions of subsection (1) and shall provide a space for the name of lessee’s insurance company if the lessor’s insurance is not to be primary.
The lease provided:
NOTICE: PURSUANT TO SECTION 627.7263, FLORIDA STATUTES, LESSOR AND LESSEE AGREE THAT THE LIABILITY INSURANCE OR PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION INSURANCE OF LESSEE OR OTHER PERMITTED OPERATOR OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PRIMARY FOR THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY AND PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION COVERAGE REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 324.-021(7) AND 627.736, FLORIDA STATUTES. NAME OF LESSEE’S INSURANCE COMPANY:_
In our opinion this provision does not comply with the statute. There is nothing in this notice "informing the lessee of the provisions of subsection (1)” of the statute. Nor does the notice inform the lessee that she was contracting to pay for what the statute requires the lessor to provide. As the court stated in Guemes v. Biscayne Auto Rentals, Inc., 414 So. 2d 216, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982):
A lessee reading the notice provided by Biscayne would believe that, by statute, his own insurer is responsible. The lessee is not informed that, to the contrary, he is contracting for a responsibility not otherwise required by law.
Lessor’s insurer relies on International Bankers Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc., 553 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The notice in the lease in that case contained language similar to the notice in the present case, except there was no reference to section 627.7263. Since the statute requires that the lessee must be informed of provisions of section 627.7263, we cannot agree with the conclusion of the fifth district that the notice is sufficient so long as the lessee is “informed by bold type notice that the lessee’s insurance is to be primary.” Id., 741.
Lessor’s insurer also relies on Interamerican Car Rental, Inc. v. Safeway Ins. Co., 615 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), in which the third district stated that these notices comply so long as they communicate in bold type that the lessee is contracting for lessee’s insurer to be primary carrier. We do not think that satisfies the clear requirements of statute.
It would have been a very simple matter for lessor to state in this lease that the statute provides that the lessor’s insurance is primary, but that the parties are contracting (as the statute permits) for lessee’s insurance to be primary. See, for example, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Lindo’s Rent-A-Car, Inc., 588 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The notice in the present case did not comply with either the spirit or the letter of the statute.
We reverse for entry of a judgment declaring the lessor’s insurance primary and certify conflict with International Bankers Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc., 553 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and Interamerican Car Rental, Inc. v. Safeway Ins. Co., 615 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Reversed.
DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Stage Lighting, Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ee bears the burden pursuant to section 627.7263. Glover v. Scamp Auto Rental I, Inc., 682 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); McCue v. Diversified Servs., Inc., 622 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 616 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 624 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1993); State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lindo’s Rent-A-Car, Inc., 588 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). But see International Bankers Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental, 553 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1…
-
McCUE v. Diversified Servs., Inc., 622 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…. v. Atlas Rent A Car, Inc., 585 So. 2d. 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 598 So. 2d 75 (Fla.1992). We have previously explained the requirements that must be met for statutory compliance. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 616 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The purpose of section 627.7263(1) is to permit the lessor of an automobile to shift primary liability for the leased vehicle to the lessee’s insurance carrier, thus rendering its own insurance secondary. The remaining interrel…
-
Dollar Sys., Inc. v. Elvia, 967 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…er of cases, but they are distinguishable. In some cases, the application of the statute was not raised. See United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Transp. Cas. Ins. Co., 747 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 616 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. S. Ins. Co., 563 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Canal Ins. Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 489 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Cole v. Se. Fid. Ins. Co., 469 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Sentry Indem.…
Authorities Cited
- Guemes v. Biscayne Auto Rentals, Inc., 414 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Int'l Bankers Ins. Co. v. Snappy CAR Rental, 553 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lindo's Rent-A-Car, Inc., 588 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Interamerican CAR Rental, Inc. v. Safeway Ins. Co., 615 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)