ORION INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND STATE NO-FAULT INSURANCE AGENCY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN A. COX, AND LINDA E. COX, HIS WIFE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND JOHN A. COX AND LINDA E. COX, AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF NIKKOLE COX, A MINOR, 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.
Orion Insurance Company appeals a judgment awarding uninsured motorist benefits to the Coxes, arguing that Linda Cox's signed waiver of uninsured motorist coverage was valid even though it was on a competitor's letterhead (American Skyhawk) rather than Orion's. The court reversed, holding that the statutory requirements for a valid uninsured motorist rejection form do not require the form to bear the issuing carrier's letterhead.
The court held that the statutory requirements for a valid uninsured motorist rejection form do not include a requirement that the form bear the issuing carrier's letterhead. A properly executed form that complies with all statutory requirements constitutes a valid waiver regardless of the carrier's logo or name on the form.
[1] A waiver of uninsured motorist coverage is valid if it complies with statutory requirements, even if the waiver form bears the letterhead of an affiliate rather than the…
[2] An uninsured motorist rejection form must be approved by the Florida Insurance Commissioner, explain uninsured motorist coverage, discuss applicable limits, and include a…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Section 627.727(1) provides that if a form in compliance with the statutory requirements "is signed by a named insured, it will be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing rejection of coverage or election of lower limits on behalf of all insureds." Thus, the governing statute does not void forms that contain the requisite signature from the insured for waiving coverage just because of a different logo on the form.”
Establishes that the statute contains no letterhead requirement and that a signed compliant form creates conclusive presumption of valid waiver regardless of carrier logo
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 3, 1992, John Cox purchased an Orion Insurance policy for his commercial truck and signed a waiver of uninsured motorist coverage on Orion …
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 Policy Renewal cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, JUAN, Jr., Associate Judge.
Orion Insurance Company appeals from a Final Judgment finding that the appellees were entitled to uninsured motorist benefits up to the liability limits of $100,000. We reverse.
Plaintiffs below sued Orion Insurance Company alleging that their respective automobile insurance policies should have included benefits for uninsured motorist coverage. The trial court held John Cox’s waiver of uninsured motorist benefits to be proper because it was on Orion Insurance Company letterhead, but found Linda Cox’s waiver to be invalid because it was secured by the agent on another carrier’s letterhead. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that Orion Insurance Company did not have a valid uninsured motorist rejection form on the policy issued to Ms. Cox, as required by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991).
On January 3, 1992, John Cox went to State No-Fault Insurance Agency to obtain coverage on his commercial truck. He purchased an Orion Insurance Company policy with liability limits of 100/300 and waived uninsured motorist coverage. Later, he stated he did not know if his policy had uninsured motorist coverage. While at the agency, Mr. Cox discussed securing insurance for his wife.
Linda Cox testified that she did not care with which insurance company she was covered. However, she did explain to the agent that she wanted the “best coverage” because she travels with children in her ear all the time. The agent had her sign some insurance forms, including an uninsured motorist rejection form on American Skyhawk Insurance Company letterhead, an affiliate of Orion Insurance Company. The agent obtained a binder for Ms. Cox’s automobile coverage and she paid a partial premium that day. The insurance policies which followed were issued by Orion Insurance Company, not American Skyhawk Insurance Company.
On May 17,1992, Mr. Cox, while operating his wife’s car, was involved in a head-on collision on 1-75 when a car driven by Alfonzo Coleman crossed over the median on the highway. Mr. Coleman did not have adequate insurance coverage on his vehicle to satisfy the damages suffered by Mr. Cox and his passenger daughter. The Coxes initiated suit against Orion Insurance Company alleging claims against Orion for uninsured motorist benefits under the two policies of insurance. The Coxes alleged that both policies taken out on January 3, 1992 should have included uninsured motorist coverage. The carrier, Orion Insurance Company, contended that the Coxes both signed uninsured motorist waivers and that it was irrelevant as to whether the uninsured motorist rejection was on the carrier’s letterhead. The policy premium was calculated from the information on the application forms which lowered Ms. Cox’s premium since uninsured motorist coverage was waived. Orion Insurance Company contended that Ms. Cox received the coverage for which she freely bargained.
According to section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991), an uninsured motorist rejection form must: (1) be approved by the Florida Insurance Commissioner; (2) explain what uninsured motorist coverage is; (3) discuss the limits that are applicable unless coverage is rejected; and (4) include the following disclaimer as a heading on the form in 12-point bold: “You are electing not to purchase certain valuable coverage which protects you and your family or you are purchasing uninsured motorist limits less than your bodily injury liability limits when you sign this form. Please read carefully.”
It is undisputed that the form signed by Linda Cox complied with the statutory requirements of an uninsured motorist rejection form. However, the form she signed was not the form of the carrier that issued the policy. According to Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Sheffield 375 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), a carrier must request from the insured the completion of the form for uninsured motorist liability coverage or its rejection, unless the policy is up for renewal with no significant liability limit changes. Ms. Cox’s .policy was not up for “renewal.” She was purchasing a new policy with a new carrier through a licensed representative.
Orion Insurance Company does not dispute that the form could bind the insurer or that the insurer is liable for any acts or omissions of the agent. § 626.752, Fla.Stat. (1991). But it is also undisputed that the form met the statutory requirements. It is merely a technicality that the signature is on a different form, and the court should have considered the evidence as to the insured’s intention to waive the uninsured motorist coverage. Ms. Cox testified that it made no difference to her which insurance company the policy was written on. She had an opportunity to clarify any policy questions as to carrier or policy terms at the time she received the policy. Having waived uninsured motorist coverage with American Skyhawk, there is no indication that she would not have also waived it with Orion Insurance Company.
Section 627.727(1) provides that if a form in compliance with the statutory requirements “is signed by a named insured, it will be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing rejection of coverage or election of lower limits on behalf of all in sureds....” Thus, the governing statute does not void forms that contain the requisite signature from the insured for waiving coverage just because of a different logo on the form.
Although the binder was secured with American Skyhawk, Orion Insurance Company was the governing carrier from the date of inception on the binder, because the policy was intended to absorb the coverage originally at the time of the binder. As soon as Orion Insurance Company issued the policy, it assumed the risk of loss from the inception of the binder. The forms signed by the insured were taken into account at the time of calculating the proper premium. Thus, any decision to hold Orion Insurance Company liable to provide the insured with uninsured motorist coverage would be granting the insured something she did not intend to receive or to pay for. As the carrier that assumed the risk, the name change on the form did not relieve Orion Insurance Company of liability had Mr. or Ms. Cox been the one that crossed over the median on the highway and collided head-on with an unsuspecting driver. The name change should not then release and excuse the Coxes from the proper statutory release they signed.
Generally, insurance companies that have secured the proper waiver are legally protected from having to provide coverage for insureds which have not paid for such coverage. Although insurance policies are generally construed liberally to give greater coverage to the insured and strictly construed against the insurer, there is no ambiguity to interpret in this case. Unlike State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Mallard, 548 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the insured’s application and insurance policy are not in conflict.
In the instant ease, it is clear that Orion Insurance Company complied with statutory requirements and that the statute is devoid of a requirement that the form must include the company logo. Thus, a valid waiver of uninsured motorist coverage was in effect at the time of the accident. Therefore, the final judgment and order finding that Orion Insurance Company did not have a valid uninsured motorist rejection form as to the policy issued to Ms. Cox and the finding that the appellees were entitled to uninsured motorist benefits up to the liability limits of $100,000 is reversed and remanded with directions to enter an Amended Final Judgment in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
GEICO Indem. Co. & GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Perez, 260 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…cting not to purchase certain valuable coverage which protects you and your family or you are purchasing uninsured motorist limits less than your bodily injury liability limits when you sign this form. Please read carefully." Orion Ins. Co. v. Cox, 681 So. 2d 760, 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ; § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). Here, GEICO's UM rejection form complied only with the first three requirements. That the Department approved the form did not obviate section 627.727(1)'s requirement that the disclaimer c…
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Ledford, 729 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…12, which is the policy number listed on the UM rejection form. Barnes also confirmed that the insured paid a premium consistent with $20,000 coverage. The Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed a similar issue in Orion Insurance Company v. Cox, 681 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In Orion, the court concluded that an insured was entitled to the statutory presumption even though the rejection form was issued by a different insurer than the actual insurance policy. See id. at 762. That court reasoned that…
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Markow, 720 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…iliate to another in August of 1988, nor the removal of the insured’s husband from the policy in March of 1990, triggered a duty on Nationwide to obtain another written waiver of UM coverage in order to avoid UM liability. See Orion Ins. Co. V. Cox, 681 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(finding that the insured rejected UM coverage despite the fact that the rejection form was printed on the letterhead of the insurer’s affiliate); Kerr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 434 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)(holding…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Inez Sheffield, 375 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mallard, 548 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)