COASTAL DATA SOLUTIONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
BRITAMCO UNDERWRITERS, INC., 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.
Coastal Data Solutions disputes whether its insurance coverage with Britamco had terminated before a fire loss occurred on September 6th. The court holds that the policy remained in effect through September 8th because the insurer properly provided 45 days' advance notice of nonrenewal by extending the original termination date, and the insured's procurement of replacement coverage did not terminate the original policy early.
The original policy remained in effect through September 8th. The insurer complied with the 45-day advance notice requirement by extending the policy termination date to September 8th. The insured's procurement of replacement coverage effective September 5th did not terminate the original Britamco policy because the statutory provision limiting coverage extension applies only when the insurer fails to give proper notice, which did not occur here.
[1] An insurer issuing a policy providing coverage for property, casualty, surety, or marine insurance must give the named insured at least 45 days' advance written notice of…
[2] An insurer may extend a policy termination date to comply with the statutory requirement of providing at least 45 days' advance written notice of nonrenewal.
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“An insurer issuing a policy providing coverage for property, casualty, surety, or marine insurance shall give the named insured at least 45 days' advance written notice of nonrenewal.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for notice of nonrenewal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoastal Data Solutions held a general business insurance policy nominally providing coverage through September 1st. Britamco sent notice of nonrenewal…
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.
FARMER, J.
In this appeal we are effectually asked to determine whether an insured’s coverage under a general business insurance policy had terminated. We conclude that the policy was still in effect when the subject fire occurred.
The insurance code requires a liability insurer to give its insured “at least 45 days advance notice of nonrenewal.” § 626.9201 Fla. Stat. (1995) (“An insurer issuing a policy providing coverage for property, casualty, surety, or marine insurance shall give the named insured at least 45 days’ advance written notice of nonrenewal.”). The policy in question nominally provided coverage through September 1st. The insurer gave notice of nonrenewal on July 22nd, however, which is less than 45 days before the termination date stated in the policy. The notice expressly said, moreover, that coverage under the policy would expire on September 8th. The termination date specified in the notice is at least 45 days after the notice was sent. Upon receipt of the notice, the insured procured a new policy with another carrier providing for coverage to begin on September 5th. Meanwhile a fire occurred on September 6th causing damage.
We reject Britamco’s contention that, because the insured obtained the new poli cy, its coverage terminated on September 5th. Section 626.9201(3) provides:
“If an insurer fails to provide the 15-day ... written notice required under this section, the coverage provided to the named insured shall remain in effect until 45 days after the notice is given or until the effective date of replacement coverage obtained by the named insured, whichever occurs first. The premium for the coverage shall remain the same during any such extension period.” [e.s.]
By its plain meaning, this provision is applicable only when the insurer has failed to give the 45 day notice. Here the insurer gave 48 days notice before the revised termination date of September 8th.
An insurer is free under section 626.9201 to extend a policy termination date to afford the insured with the full 45 day notice contemplated by the statute. Having so extended the policy termination date in order to facilitate its own statutory duty, the insurer can hardly insist on the original termination date specified in the policy before the notice. The new policy with the other carrier did not replace the existing coverage afforded by Britamco through September 8th.
REVERSED.
KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.