THOMAS A. WOLF, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JERRY G. BECKMEYER, JR., DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The court affirmed a summary judgment denying uninsured motorist benefits to an insured who had rejected UM coverage and died in a motorcycle accident caused by an uninsured driver. The court held that Florida Statute 627.727(1) requires insurers to provide notice of UM coverage options only annually, not with every policy renewal, even when policies renew every six months.
The court held that section 627.727(1) requires notice of UM coverage options to be provided only at least annually, not with every policy renewal. Therefore, Progressive was not required to include UM coverage information in Beckmeyer's six-month renewal notice, and he was not entitled to UM benefits despite the insurer's failure to provide notice with that particular renewal.
[1] An insurer is required to notify the named insured at least annually of their options regarding uninsured motorist coverage.
[2] A six-month policy renewal notice is not required to include information about uninsured motorist coverage options if the insured had previously rejected such coverage.
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“Unless an insured ... requests such coverage or requests higher uninsured motorist limits in writing, the coverage or such higher uninsured motorist limits need not be provided in or supplemental to any other policy which renews, extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy with the same bodily injury liability limits when an insured ... had rejected the coverage.... The insurer shall notify the named insured at least annually of her or his options as to the coverage required by this section.”
The court quoted the statutory language establishing the frequency and manner of required UM coverage notice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJerry G. Beckmeyer, Jr. rejected UM coverage when applying for auto insurance with Progressive. His initial six-month policy period ran from August 28…
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 Plain Language Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment finding that Jerry G. Beckmeyer, Jr., was not entitled to uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits under his automobile insurance policy in force when he was killed in a motorcycle accident by an uninsured driver. At issue is whether section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2006), required Progressive American Insurance Company (“Progressive”) to include information about UM coverage options in Mr. Beckmeyer’s six-month policy renewal notice. We review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, see, e.g., Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000), O’Brien v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 999 So.2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), *82and find the court correctly interpreted the plain language of the statute to require only annual notice of UM coverage options.
Under section 627.727(1), vehicle liability insurance policies must include UM coverage unless the named insured rejects such coverage in writing. The statute also provides, in pertinent part:
Unless an insured ... requests such coverage or requests higher uninsured motorist limits in writing, the coverage or such higher uninsured motorist limits need not be provided in or supplemental to any other policy which renews, extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy with the same bodily injury liability limits when an insured ... had rejected the coverage.... The insurer shall notify the named insured at least annually of her or his options as to the coverage required by this section. Such notice shall be part of and attached to, the notice of premium, shall provide for a means to allow the insured to request such coverage, and shall be given in a manner approved by the office.
§ 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (2006) (emphasis added). If an insurer fails to provide notice of UM coverage options in the manner required by the statute, the insured is entitled to such coverage even if it had been initially rejected. See Tobin v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 948 So.2d 692 (Fla.2006); Patterson v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 564 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); N. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Hiers, 504 So.2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Mr. Beckmeyer rejected UM coverage in his application for auto insurance. The initial six-month policy period was August 28, 2005, to February 28, 2006. Before the policy period expired, Progressive sent Mr. Beckmeyer a renewal reminder and notice of premium due to continue the policy for another six months. The renewal notice did not include information regarding UM coverage options, and Mr. Beckmeyer did not elect such coverage for the renewal policy period, February 28, 2006, to August 28, 2006. Mr. Beckmeyer was fatally injured by an uninsured motorist on May 26, 2006. The personal representative of Mr. Beckmeyer’s estate asserts that Progressive’s failure to include the UM coverage information with the six-month renewal notice allows the estate to recover UM liability benefits to which Mr. Beckmeyer was entitled.
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts have no need to look behind the plain language or resort to rules of statutory construction to find legislative intent. Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So.2d 587, 595 (Fla.2006); Peachtree Cas. Ins. Co. v. Prof'l Massage Servs., 923 So.2d 548, 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citing Warren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1090, 1095 (Fla.2005.)) We do not read the plain language of section 627.727(1) to require that notice of UM coverage availability be sent more frequently than annually, even where, as here, the insured’s policy renews every six months. The statute states only that such notice must be sent “at least annually.” See Yzaguirre v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., Inc., 793 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (referring to the “annual notice” required by section 627.727(1)); Allianz Ins. Co. v. Halpenny, 678 So.2d 368, 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (same). The statutory language requiring the notice to be “part of, and attached to, the notice of premium” dictates the manner in which the notice must be provided, not the frequency with which it must be provided. Progressive was not required to include notice of UM coverage options in Mr. Beckmeyer’s six-month policy renewal notice. Therefore, *83the trial court correctly found Mr. Beck-meyer was not entitled to UM benefits.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF and LEWIS, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Agency FOR Persons With Disabilities v. Dallas, 38 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…infer such authority from the fact that Chapter 916 utilizes the definition of retardation in Chapter 393. To do otherwise would be to ignore the legislative intent expressed in the language of Chapter 916. See Wolf v. Progressive American Ins. Co., 34 So. 3d 81, 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (courts have no need to look behind clear and unambiguous statutory language to find legislative intent). That said, if, as in this ease, the Agency previously has deemed an individual ineligible for services under Chapter 39…
-
Srygley v. Cap. Plaza, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…e terms their plain meaning. Carmack v. State, Dep’t. of Agric., 31 So. 3d 798, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). When the plain meaning of a statute is clear, a court should look no further than the language of the statute. Wolf v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 34 So. 3d 81, 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Accordingly, we begin our analysis with a review of the pertinent statutes. Pursuant to section 197.522(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), the tax deed sale process begins with notification by certified or registered mail to c…
-
Lashonda Franklin v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 44 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. The trial court’s order of summary judgment in favor of appellee is AFFIRMED. See Wolf v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 34 So. 3d 81, 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“We do not read the plain language of section 627.727(1) to require that notice of UM coverage availability be sent more frequently than annually, even where ... the insured’s policy renews every six months.”), rev. denied,…
Authorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2006)
- Warren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 899 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2005)
- Patterson v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 564 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Tobin v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 948 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 2006)
- O'Brien v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 999 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- N. Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. Lottie M. Hiers and Thomas N. Hiers, 504 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Yzaguirre v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., Inc., 793 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Allianz Ins. Co. v. Halpenny, 678 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Peachtree Cas. Ins. Co. v. Prof'l Massage Servs., Inc., 923 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)