UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANNE ROUSSEAU, 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.
The court held that the insurer was not entitled to a directed verdict because it failed to provide the policy to the claimant after repeated requests, thus excusing the claimant's non-compliance with policy conditions precedent.
[1] An insurer's failure to provide a copy of the policy within 30 days of a claimant's written request, as mandated by statute, precludes the insurer from asserting the clai…
[2] A trial court does not err in refusing to grant a directed verdict for an insurer based on a claimant's alleged failure to comply with policy conditions precedent when th…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff, injured in an automobile accident, sued her insurer for uninsured motorist benefits. The insurer argued for a directed verdict based on the…
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 Omnibus Insured cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
We affirm the judgment entered in favor of appellee, Jeanne Rousseau (plaintiff), who was injured while riding as a passenger in a motor vehicle involved in an automobile accident. She filed suit for uninsured motorist benefits against appellant, United Automobile Insurance Company (UAIC), who was the insurer for the owner of the motor vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger. UAIC asserts on appeal that it was entitled to a directed verdict because plaintiff failed to prove compliance with conditions precedent in the UAIC insurance policy. We disagree.
It is undisputed that plaintiff, as an omnibus insured, did not have a copy of the UAIC insurance policy. It is undisputed that plaintiff, through her attorney, repeatedly requested a copy of the policy and that UAIC failed to provide a copy of the policy. It is undisputed that the insurer failed to comply with subsection 627.4137(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1993), which mandates that an insurer “shall provide” a copy of the policy “within 30 days of the written request of the claimant.” Cf. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Singletary, 540 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a directed verdict for UAIC on its affirmative defense of plaintiffs failure to comply -with conditions precedent. See Figueroa v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 664 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). We expressly do not reach the issue of whether providing a signed medical authorization constitutes a condition precedent under the language of the UAIC policy.
We grant plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 627.428, Florida Statutes (1995). UAIC’s sole argument on appeal relates to a coverage issue; specifically, that plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage as a result of her alleged failure to comply with conditions precedent in the insurance policy. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lynch, 661 So. 2d 1227, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
AFFIRMED.
POLEN, J., and TAYLOR, CAROLE Y., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 2010)…ons precedent necessary to trigger contractual duties under an existing agreement is generally viewed as an affirmative defense, for which the defensive pleader has the burden of pleading and persuasion. See, e.g., United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rousseau, 682 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (identifying “failure to comply with conditions precedent” as an affirmative defense); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Zulma, 661 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (similar); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.120(c) (“In pleading the p…
-
Porcelli v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., Inc., 635 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2008)…7(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1993), an insurer is required to provide, among other things, a copy of the insured’s insurance policy within thirty days of a *1319 written request by any claimant. 3 See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rousseau, 682 So.2d 1229, 1229-30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding that insurer’s failure to provide claimant with a copy of insured’s policy, as required by statute, disqualified insurer’s affirmative defense based on claimant’s failure to comply with conditions precedent stat…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lynch, 661 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Singletary, 540 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Ignacia Figueroa v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 664 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)