SHELLEY ELLMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
OCCIDENTAL FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rejection Of Uninsured Motorist Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Occidental. See § 627.727(2), Fla. Stat. (1984). Occidental’s policy provided only excess coverage to Appellant’s husband, Donald Ellman, and USF & G, his personal automobile policy, provided primary coverage. Further, at the time he rented the automobile in question from Value Rent-A-Car, Donald Ellman explicitly rejected the opportunity to purchase primary coverage from Occidental. Therefore, Occidental was under no obligation under the rental car agreement to furnish uninsured motorist coverage to him. See generally, Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So. 2d 1026, 1028 (Fla.1991); Tres v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 705 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
We do not address, as it is moot, Appellant’s argument that there remain issues of fact regarding whether rejection of uninsured motorist coverage by Value Rent-A-Car and Donald Ellman was enforceable as informed, because the written rejections did not follow the statutory form.
STONE, POLEN, and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Peacock's Excavating Serv., Inc., 186 So. 3d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…e Properties and Dahly. - Our sister court has held, albeit perhaps for different reasons, that a partial final judgment that only construes a duty to defend under an insurance policy is not an appealable order. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harrick, 763 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999),3 Applying this court’s established, three-factor test in Bayshore Properties, we agree with the conclusion reached by the Fourth District. The Partial Final Judgment is not an appealable final order.- Nor is it an appealab…
-
Transcon. Ins. Co. v. JIM Black & Assocs., Inc., 888 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…he Insured asserts that because the trial court’s partial final judgment only addresses the duty to defend and not the existence of coverage, jurisdiction for this appeal is not available under rule 9:110(n). See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harrick, 763 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that an order determining that the insurer, had a duty to defend, but not determining coverage, was not appealable under rule 9.110(n)). Rule 9.110(n) states the following: “Judgments that determine the existence or non…
-
Centennial Ins. Co. v. Life Bank, 953 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…he first to suggest that the provision grants a district court jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a nonfinal order that determines the existence or nonexistence of insurance coverage. For example, in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Harrick, 763 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the Fourth District dismissed an appeal from a nonfinal order that granted the insured’s motion for summary judgment on the insurer’s duty to defend the insured in another lawsuit but denied the motion for summary judgment as to…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1991)
- Tres v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 705 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)