SHANNON GLENNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
SERVICE INSURANCE 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.
This case addresses whether an insurance carrier can rely on postal proof of mailing to establish notice of policy cancellation even when the insured claims non-receipt. The court held that under Florida law, postal proof of mailing is sufficient proof of notice and the insured cannot contest the cancellation by showing they never received it.
The insured cannot contest the cancellation by proving non-receipt. Postal proof of mailing constitutes sufficient proof of notice under Florida Statute section 627.728(5), and the insured is bound by the cancellation regardless of actual receipt. Additionally, although the 45-day notice requirement applies to policies with binders covering more than 60 days, any error in providing only 5 days' notice was harmless because the accident occurred 77 days after the notice was mailed.
[1] Proof of mailing a notice of cancellation of motor vehicle property damages insurance to the named insured at the address shown in the policy is sufficient proof of notic…
[2] A statute providing that United States postal proof of mailing of reasons for cancellation is sufficient proof of notice is construed to allow the carrier to establish co…
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“United States postal proof of mailing * * * of reasons for cancellation * * * to the named insured at the address shown in the policy shall be sufficient proof of notice.”
Establishes the statutory standard that postal proof of mailing satisfies the notice requirement, allowing the carrier to prove compliance without proving actual receipt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe insured applied for motor vehicle property damage insurance and received a binder on July 26th. The carrier mailed a notice of cancellation on Aug…
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 Coverage Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
This lawsuit relates to a cancellation of motor vehicle property damages insurance little more than 2 weeks after the agent gave a binder. The application was made and the binder issued on July 26th. The insureds contend that they never received any notice of cancellation. After suffering an accident on October 27th, the insureds made a claim for coverage, which is the subject of this action. The trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the carrier was based on its proof of U.S. Postal receipt showing that a notice of cancellation was mailed on August 11th, to become effective August 16th.
The issues in this appeal turn on whether the insureds can contest the cancellation by showing that they never received the notice mailed by the carrier. We agree with the trial court that they cannot.
Section 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that: “United States postal proof of mailing * * * of reasons for cancellation * * * to the named insured at the address shown in the policy shall be sufficient proof of notice.” In Bankers Insurance Co. v. Pannunzio, 538 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), disapproved on other grounds, 624 So. 2d 252 (Fla.1993), we construed the comparable but not identical provision in section 627.848(1) to allow the carrier to establish compliance by proving mailing even though the insured claims nonreceipt of the notice. We do not find any basis to distinguish Pannunzio in our construction of section 627.728(5).
We agree with the insureds that the binder in this case expressly covered a period of more than 60 days, and that the 45-day notice provision in section 627.728(3)(a) therefore applies. We do not agree, however, that the notice in this ease was defective merely because it stated a cancellation date only 5 days from the mailing. The accident in question occurred 77 days after the notice. Cf. First State Ins. Co. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 643 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (actual oral notice of cancellation given 79 days before the fire occurred was effective to cancel policy notwithstanding the fact that the policy provided for 10 days written notice), review granted, 658 So. 2d 990 (Fla.1995). The insureds would not have had coverage if the notice had actually given 45 days. Hence, the error is harmless.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, J., and HUBBART, PHILLIP A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Castellon v. Am. Skyhawk Ins. Co., 785 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…tes postal proof of mailing or certified or registered mailing of notice of cancellation ... of reasons for cancellation ... to the named insured at the address shown in the policy shall be sufficient proof of notice.”); Glenney v. Service Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (allowing the carrier to establish compliance by postal proof of mailing, even though the insured claimed nonreceipt of the notice). We also reject appellant Joaquin A. Castellon’s argument that the insurer has to prove tha…
-
The Aries Ins. Co. v. Cayre, 785 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…notice of policy cancellation was mailed in accordance with subsection 627.728(5), the insured’s evidence of nonreceipt is irrelevant. Woodcock v. Motors Insurance Corp., 422 So. 2d 959, 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Glenney v. Service Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Boman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 505 So. 2d 445, 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The first question we must decide is what constitutes United States postal proof of mailing for purposes of subsection 627.728(5). We agree…
Authorities Cited
- Bankers Ins. Co. v. Pannunzio, 538 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Cooke, 624 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1993)
- First State Ins. Co. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md., 643 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)