NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS R. SMITH AND ALICIA R. HITE, APPELLEES
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.
Nationwide sought review of a summary judgment in favor of its insured, who avoided policy cancellation by paying an overdue premium before the deadline. The court affirmed, holding that the insured's payment was timely because the insurance company's bank received the electronic payment before the cancellation date, regardless of processing delays.
The court affirmed summary judgment for the insured. While the trial court incorrectly applied Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(a) to extend the payment deadline to the next business day, the insured was entitled to summary judgment because the insurance company's bank received the electronic payment before the cancellation date and any delay in deposit was caused by the insurer's bank's processing, not the insured's failure to pay timely.
[1] An insurer may affirm a summary judgment for the insured, even if the trial court's reasoning was erroneous, if the judgment is otherwise correct.
[2] A grace period for premium payment in an insurance policy does not automatically extend to the next business day when the deadline falls on a Sunday, absent specific cont…
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“By extending the payment deadline to the next business day, the trial court stacked "grace" upon "grace," which cannot be done by implication under contract law.”
The court rejected the trial court's rationale for extending the deadline using civil procedure rules to a contract-based grace period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNationwide provided its insured an automobile insurance policy with a grace period allowing the insured to avoid cancellation for nonpayment if he pai…
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 Computation Of Time Periods cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a summary final judgment entered in favor of its insured, which concluded that appellant provided insurance coverage on the date of its insured’s automobile accident because the insured paid his overdue premium before the effective cancellation date of the policy. We conclude that the trial court properly entered summary judgment against appellant, albeit for the wrong reason. Accordingly, we affirm. See Henderson v. Crosby, 888 So.2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (applying the “tipsy coachman” rule to affirm a summary judgment).
Appellant provided its insured with a grace period which allowed the insured to avoid cancellation of his automobile insurance policy for nonpayment of premium if he made the overdue premium payment before 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, September 25, 2005. The trial court concluded that since the last day of the grace period fell on a Sunday, the payment deadline was extended to the next business day, Monday, September 26, 2005, by operation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(a), which governs the computation of statutory time periods absent specific provisions to the contrary. See Health Quest Corp. IV v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 593 So.2d 533, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The only applicable statute in this case is section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), which requires an insurer to give its insured 10 days’ notice before cancelling a policy for nonpayment of premium. Because the statute does not require the insurer to allow the insured to make an overdue premium payment before the cancellation date in order to avoid cancellation of the policy for nonpayment of premium, the time computation provisions of rule 1.090(a) are not applicable in this case.
By extending the payment deadline to the next business day, the trial court stacked “grace” upon “grace,” which cannot be done by implication under contract law. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Green, 500 So.2d 563, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). However, even if the payment deadline was not extended, the trial court properly entered summary judgment for the insured because appellant’s bank received the insured’s electronic payment file before the cancellation date and the delay in the deposit of the payment into appel*945lant’s bank account was due to processing delays by appellant’s bank.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, WEBSTER, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Green, 500 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Health Quest Corp. IV v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 593 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)