MIRIAM NANCY FERREIRO, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Mrs. Ferreiro, an Argentine citizen, purchased an excess rental car liability insurance policy from Philadelphia Indemnity but was not offered uninsured motorist (UM) coverage, which the policy explicitly excluded. After being injured by an uninsured motorist, she sued for declaratory relief claiming Philadelphia violated Florida Statute § 627.727(2), which requires insurers to make UM coverage available. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and held that Philadelphia must provide UM coverage despite the underlying rental company's exemption from offering primary UM coverage.
Philadelphia Indemnity was required to offer UM coverage under § 627.727(2) despite the absence of primary UM coverage on the underlying rental. The statutory requirements for excess carriers to offer UM coverage are separate from and independent of any exemptions applicable to the underlying insurer, and failure to comply with the statute's mandate results in the insurer being held to that coverage.
[1] An insurer issuing an excess motor vehicle policy must make uninsured motorist coverage available up to the bodily injury liability limits of the policy or $1 million, wh…
[2] Failure of a motor vehicle insurer to comply with statutory requirements concerning the offer or provision of uninsured motorist protection results in the insurer being h…
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“[a]n insurer issuing [an excess motor vehicle policy] shall make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured, limits [of UM coverage] up to the bodily injury liability limits contained in such policy or $1 million, whichever is less”
The statutory requirement of § 627.727(2) that mandated Philadelphia Indemnity make UM coverage available to Mrs. Ferreiro
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Ferreiro, an Argentine citizen, rented a car from Budget Rent-A-Car in Miami and purchased optional rental supplemental liability insurance with …
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 Declaratory Action cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
When Mrs. Ferreiro, an Argentine citizen, rented a car from BudgetARent-A-Car in Miami, she purchased an optional “Rental Supplemental Liability Insurance Excess Policy”1 from Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, in which she was the insured and which provided $1,000,000 limits of liability insurance. Although section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1997) specifically provides that
[a]n insurer issuing [an excess motor vehicle policy] shall make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured, limits [of UM coverage] up to the bodily injury liability limits contained in such policy or $1 million, whichever is less no uninsured motorist benefits were made available to her and the written policy (with which she was not provided) indeed specifically excluded them. Unfortunately, soon after she rented the vehicle, Mrs. Ferreiro was seriously injured in an accident with an uninsured motorist and brought this declaratory action claiming the right to UM coverage because of Philadelphia’s violation of the statute. The trial judge found for the insurance company but we reverse.
Our conclusion is based simply upon the clear requirements of the statute, which apply directly to the present set of facts, and a long, uninterrupted chain of Florida cases which say that the failure of any motor vehicle insurer, specifically including an excess or even an umbrella carrier, to abide by pertinent statutory requirements concerning offers or provisions of UM protection results in its being held to that coverage. Strochak v. Federal Ins. Co., 717 So. 2d 453 (Fla.1998); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1991); Weesner v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 711 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 914 (Fla.1999); Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Russell, 527 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Cohen v. American Home Assurance Co., 367 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 342 (Fla.1979).
The carrier contends and the trial judge held, however, that the fact that, as a self-insured rental company, Budget was not required, under section 627.727(1) to offer or provide primary UM coverage on the short term rental, see Diversified Servs., Inc. v. Avila, 606 So. 2d 364 (Fla.1992), negates the section 627.727(2) obligation of the carrier to offer that coverage. We totally disagree. Indeed, because the one thing simply has nothing to do with the other, see Diversified, 606 So. 2d at 364-66; Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Mitchell, 164 Misc.2d 899, 626 N.Y.S.2d 401 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) (applying § 627.727 and Diversified Senices, Inc. v. Avila), we find nothing whatever to recommend this contention.2 It is well settled that excess coverage may arise by statutory requirement, even when no underlying or primary UM coverage exists at all. See Sirantoine v. Illinois Employers Ins., 438 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(excess carrier required to offer UM even though insured has specifically rejected primary UM); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Green, 327 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 1179 (Fla.1976)(same). In any event, the statute provides for no such exception and requires, particularly in view of the often expressed Florida public policy in favor of UM coverage, see Mullis v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971), that that protection be provided here. We so hold.
Reversed.
. The policy was a part of an entire package of "extra protection” she purchased, including optional personal accident and effects coverage, and optional collision coverage.
. As we see it, the two provisions are not only not mutually repugnant, but entirely consistent. This is because the renter will ordinarily have primary UM coverage of her own, which would meld perfectly with the excess required to be offered by any would-be excess carrier. The fact that Mrs. Ferreiro, as a foreign national, had no UM (or liability) coverage herself does not detract from, indeed, may actually increase the importance of her being given the chance (which she would have likely taken, see supra n. 1) to purchase that protection.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Brien v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 999 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…ambiguous rejection of uninsured motorist coverage under the umbrella policy stands. VIII. We accept the premise that precise compliance with statutory requirements is nee- [*1090] essary in this area. See Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 816 So. 2d 140,141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (recognizing “long, uninterrupted chain of Florida cases which say that the failure of any motor vehicle insurer, specifically including an excess or even an umbrella carrier, to abide by pertinent statutory requirements conce…
-
Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 928 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…offer Ferreiro uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. The parties dispute whether Ferreiro has standing to bring a class action against Philadelphia for failing to offer such coverage. This Court, in Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 816 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), held that Philadelphia was required by section 627.727(2) to inform Fer-reiro that uninsured motorist coverage was available. By mandate issued on July 19, 2002, we directed the trial court to hold Philadelphia to uninsured motor…
-
Nieves v. N. River Ins. Co., 49 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ves seeks to turn the excess liability carrier into the primary carrier for this purpose, something which would significantly alter the relationship between the insured and excess insurer. Nieves relies on Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indent. Ins. Co., 816 So. 2d 140, 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). We find that case, as well as those on which it relies, distinguishable. In Ferreiro, where an insured purchased excess liability coverage on her rental vehicle and was subsequently injured in an accident, the court held tha…
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
- Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1991)
- Weesner v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 711 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Wolfie Cohen v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 367 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Green, 327 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Diversified Servs., Inc. v. Alida Avila, 606 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1992)
- Strochak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 717 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1998)
- The Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Millicent Russell and the Estate of Richard Russell, 527 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Sirantoine v. Ill. Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau, 438 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Thorney v. Clough, 438 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)