KAREN CHILTON, APPELLANT,
v.
ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANY, 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.
Karen Chilton challenges a summary judgment dismissing her claim for insurance benefits after her premium check was returned for insufficient funds. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the statutory notice requirements for policy cancellation do not apply when an insurance policy application explicitly conditions coverage on successful payment of the initial premium.
The court held that section 627.728's notice of cancellation provisions do not apply when the policy application specifically provides that coverage is ineffective and null and void if the initial premium is not successfully paid, as the policy never became effective due to failure of consideration rather than cancellation.
[1] An insurance policy is null and void from inception if the initial premium check is returned for insufficient funds, as provided in the policy application.
[2] A statute requiring ten days notice before cancellation of an insurance policy does not apply when the policy is void from inception due to non-payment of the initial pre…
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“I agree that if my downpayment or full payment check is returned by the bank because of nonsufficient funds, coverage will be null and void from inception.”
The explicit policy application language that conditioned coverage on successful payment of the initial premium
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChilton applied for an automobile insurance policy with Atlanta Casualty on October 16, 1991, and submitted a check for the initial premium. The polic…
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 Void Ab Initio cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Karen Chilton, challenges the summary judgment entered in favor of appel-lee, Atlanta Casualty Company. We affirm.
Chilton applied for an automobile insurance policy with Atlanta Casualty on October 16, 1991. At that time, she wrote a check to Atlanta Casualty for the initial premium, and signed the policy application. The policy application contained the following language: “I agree that if my downpayment or full payment check is returned by the bank be-' cause of nonsufficient funds, coverage will be null and void from inception.” Subsequently, Atlanta Casualty issued a policy of insurance to Chilton and sent her insurance identification cards. The effective date stated in the policy was October 19, 1991.
The check Chilton submitted with her application was rejected by her bank on October 25, 1991, due to insufficient funds. On November 5, 1991, Atlanta Casualty sent Chilton a letter stating: “However, since there has been no payment by virtue of their check having been returned and therefore no consideration for the policy contract, there has been no insurance in effect since the date and time of the original application/renewal.”
Two days later, on November 7,1991, Chil-ton was involved in an automobile accident from which she suffered medical expenses and lost wages as a result of her injuries. Several days later, Chilton received the notice from Atlanta Casualty dated November 5, 1991, stating that her policy was null and void due to the return of her premium check.
Chilton thereafter filed suit for payment of personal injury protection benefits under the terms of the policy. Atlanta Casualty moved for and was granted summary judgment on the basis that no contractual obligation under the policy was ever consummated due to the failure of consideration according to the policy terms.
Chilton argues that summary judgment was improperly granted since Atlanta Casualty failed to comply with section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1991), which requires that ten days notice or warning be given before any policy of insurance is cancelled. Atlanta Casualty’s position is that Florida Statute 627.728 does not apply in a situation where the policy application specifically so provides and the nonpayment of premium is for the payment of the initial premium.
The policy application in this case contains language stating that the policy would be void from the inception date if the initial payment of premium was not made or if the check was returned for insufficient funds. In her deposition, Chilton acknowledged that she understood the effect of that policy application provision. We agree that the notice of cancellation provisions of section 627.728 do not apply to the circumstances of this case where the notice of cancellation is based upon the failure of the consideration for the initial premium, and the policy application specifically provides that it is ineffective and null and void if the initial premium is not successfully paid.
To hold otherwise would be to require insurance companies to provide insurance coverage without any consideration during the initial policy period.
Affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.