DIANNA G. LONG, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE, ETC., APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1998-02-27
No. 97-0568
DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
707 So. 2d 390 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1998) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

The personal representative of an insured's estate appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim for uninsured motorist coverage after her husband was killed by an uninsured motorist. The court affirmed, holding that the insured's signed written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage, complying with Florida law, created a conclusive presumption that he did not have such coverage.


Holding

The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that the insured's specific written and signed rejection of uninsured motorist coverage created a conclusive presumption that he did not possess such coverage. The signature on the nonstacking provision did not create ambiguity because that provision merely addresses how coverage would be handled if requested, not whether coverage was requested.


Headnotes

[1] An insured's written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage, complying with statutory requirements, creates a prima facie showing that such coverage does not apply.

[2] An insured is bound by a written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage absent allegations of forgery, fraud, or trickery.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“the insured's written rejection constitutes a prima facia showing that uninsured motorist coverage does not apply”

Establishes the legal standard that a signed rejection creates a presumption against coverage

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In August 1993, Larry Long purchased an automobile liability insurance policy from Prudential and specifically rejected uninsured motorist coverage by…

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.


Opinion of the Court
ANTOON, Judge.

ANTOON, Judge.

The personal representative of the Estate of Larry Long (Long) appeals the trial court’s order entering summary final judgment in favor of Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance (Prudéntial). The order determined that Prudential’s automobile insurance contract with Long did riot include uninsured motorist coverage. We affirm-because the uneontroverted facts demonstrate that Long knowingly rejected uninsured motorist coverage.

In August 1993, Long purchased an automobile liability insurance policy from Prudential. On the application for insurance, Long specifically rejected uninsured motorist coverage by signing a waiver which complied with section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1991). On another part of the application, Long indicated that uninsured motorist coverage would not be stacked. Prudential issued the policy to Long and later renewed the policy without uninsured motorist coverage. Long never requested Prudential to provide him with uninsured motorist coverage.

On March 17, 1995, Long was fatally injured when the automobile he was driving, and which was insured under the Prudential policy, collided with a motorcycle driven by an uninsured, motorist. Dianna Long sued Prudential alleging that uninsured motorist coverage was available to her under her husband’s policy. The trial court entered summary judgment against her on this claim.

Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1991), requires that all motor vehicle liability insurance policies which provide bodily injury liability coverage include uninsured motorist coverage. However, an insured may reject such coverage in writing, and the insured’s written rejection constitutes a prima facia showing that uninsured motorist, coverage does not apply. See Jackson v. State, Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 469 So. 2d 191, 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Absent exigent circumstances such as forgery, fraud, or trickery, the insured is deemed to be bound by his signature on an informed rejection form. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Kauffman, 495 So. 2d 1184, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. dismissed, 511 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1987).

Dianna Long argues that the presumption that her husband rejected uninsured motorist coverage is not conclusive because he also executed the nonstacking portion of the application. In this regard, pursuant to section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1991), an insured who accepts uninsured motorist coverage can choose not to stack such coverage in exchange for a reduction in the premium charged for the uninsured motorist coverage. Dianna Long contends that we should presume that her husband requested uninsured motorist coverage because he agreed that uninsured motorist coverage would not be stacked. Alternatively, Dianna Long argues that her husband’s signature on the anti-stacking provision of the application creates ambiguity with regard to whether he knowingly rejected uninsured motorist coverage. We disagree.

The part of the application for insurance which addresses nonstacking of uninsured motorist coverage does not include a request for uninsured motorist coverage. Moreover, section 627.727(9) of the Florida Statutes does not indicate that an insured’s decision not to stack uninsured motorist coverage constitutes a request for such coverage. Rather, it is simply a request that if uninsured motorist coverage is requested, the coverage will not be stacked. Therefore, no ambiguity was created when Long rejected uninsured motorist coverage in the same policy in which he chose not to stack uninsured motorist coverage. Indeed, Long’s specific written and signed rejection, of uninsured motorist coverage created a conclusive presumption that he did not possess uninsured motorist coverage.

Accordingly, since Dianna Long did not allege that her husband’s rejection of uninsured motorist coverage was obtained by forgery, fraud, or trickery or that his waiver was uninformed, the trial court correctly entered summary final judgment in favor of Prudential.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Parrish, 873 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
    …Co., 563 So. 2d 164, 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). An insured may reject such coverage in writing, and the insured’s written rejection constitutes a prima facie showing that uninsured motorist coverage does not apply. Long v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 707 So. 2d 390, 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (citing Jackson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 469 So. 2d 191, 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)). With regard to the rejection or selection of UM coverage, section 627.727(1) specifically provides: The rejection or selection of lower…
  • Bessman v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 773 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (N.D. Fla. 2011)
    …man thus filed suit against Travelers. 2 . Florida Statute § 627.727 requires that any automobile liability insurance policy issued in Florida covering bodily injury also provide UM/UIM coverage. Long v. Prudential Prop, and Cas. Ins., 707 So.2d 390, 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). The statute further provides, however, that a named insured may reject such coverage by signing a UM/UIM selection form. See id. Travelers produced a UM/UIM selection form showing that Hope Lumber rejected UM/UIM cove…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw