ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MELINDA CIPRIANI, 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.
Allstate Insurance Company appealed a trial court order finding that medical payment coverage remained in effect under a policy after the insured's vehicle was removed. The appellate court reversed, holding that Allstate waived its policy provision requiring written cancellation when it accepted oral notice via telephone to an authorized agent, given the parties' established practice of modifying coverage by phone.
The court held that the telephone call to the agent was effective to remove the insured's car from the policy because Allstate waived its policy provision requiring written cancellation. Such provisions are for the benefit of the insurer and are subject to waiver, particularly where the insurer does not seek protection of the provision, the parties have a history of modifying coverage by telephone, and the facts are clear and consistent with that past practice.
[1] An insurer may waive a policy provision requiring written notice of cancellation.
[2] A history of adding and deleting vehicles from an insurance policy through oral communication with an agent can establish a waiver of a written cancellation requirement.
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“Insurance policy provisions permitting written cancellation generally are considered to be for the benefit of the insurer, and subject to waiver by the insurer.”
Establishes the legal principle that written cancellation requirements can be waived by the insurer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMelinda Cipriani's automobile was covered under her father's Allstate insurance policy. The father's other daughter, Debbie, who worked in their fathe…
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 Waiver Of Policy Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We reverse an order that found medical payment coverage under an Allstate policy notwithstanding that Appellee’s automobile was removed from the policy as an insured vehicle prior to the accident.
Melinda Cipriani’s car was covered under her father’s policy. Her sister Debbie worked in their father’s insurance agency and regularly handled his business and personal affairs, which included a history of her adding and deleting vehicles on her father’s policy by telephoning Don Leach, the Allstate agent who had handled the family’s automobile insurance business for several years. The record reflects, essentially without material dispute, that Debbie was authorized by the father, generally as well as in this case, to do so. Following Debbie’s call, Leach notified Allstate of the deletion in writing.
No written notice was executed by the insured. There is no provision in the policy for oral cancellation. The policy provides, with respect to cancellation, “you may cancel by writing....” The trial court concluded that this policy provision applied and because there was no cancellation by the insured in writing, the policy remained in effect.
We conclude that the telephone call to the agent was effective to remove Appellee’s car from the policy. Insurance policy provisions permitting written cancellation generally are considered to be for the benefit of the insurer, and subject to waiver by the insurer. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Doody, 193 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). See also State Farm, Auto. Ins. Co. v. James, 562 N.E. 2d 777 (Ind.App. 1st Dist.1990); Schroeder v. Horack, 592 S.W. 2d 742 (Mo.1979). We can discern no reason for concluding that such a provision may not be waived, particularly where the insurance company does not seek the protection of the policy provision, the parties have a history of adding and deleting vehicles by calling the agent, and the essential facts are clear and consistent with that past history.
Because we hold that the policy provision for a writing was waived, we need not determine whether deleting a vehicle from a policy constitutes a “cancellation,” or whether the writing requirement is satisfied by the agent’s authorized submission of the written form on behalf of the insured.
As to all other issues raised, we find no error or abuse of discretion. The final order is therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DELL, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Visible Difference, Inc. v. The Velvet Swing, L.L.C., 862 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…provision concerning the zoning approval in spite of the language in the agreement. In fact, this court has allowed waiver where abiding by the express terms of the contract would otherwise have prohibited it. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Cipriani, 629 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), this court determined that an oral cancellation of an insurance policy was sufficient notwithstanding that the policy specifically required cancellation to be done in writing. The Cipriani opinion noted that “[ijnsurance policy…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Doody, 193 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)