CURTIS HAMPTON AND LINDA HAMPTON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST, 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 that FMIT's insurance agreement with the City of Plantation was excess coverage, not primary coverage, and therefore was not required to include uninsured motorist protection under Florida law.
An insurance agreement providing for a self-retained limit of $200,000 constitutes self-insurance creating a primary layer of exposure, with the insurer's policy providing excess coverage and thus not requiring uninsured motorist protection.
[1] A self-retained limit in an insurance endorsement constitutes self-insurance creating a primary layer of exposure, distinguishing it from a deductible and making the insu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFMIT provided insurance to the City of Plantation under an agreement modified by a Specific Excess Endorsement that established a $200,000 self-retent…
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 Self-Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the final declaratory judgment determining that the Florida Municipal Insurance Trust (“FMIT”) agreement with its member, City of Plantation, provided excess insurance and not primary insurance for automobile accidents. Thus, it was not required to include uninsured motorist protection as part of its provisions. See § 627.727(2), Fla. Stat (2011). The insuring agreement was modified by a “Specific Excess Endorsement Self-Retention Members — Automobile Liability,” which provided for a retention limit of $200,000 by the member. The terms of the endorsement provided that the member would not only cover claims within that limit but would provide for its own defense of such matters, although it could contract with FMIT to provide a defense and reimburse it for its expense. This self-retained limit is not like a deductible but is in fact self-insurance to the extent of the retained limit of $200,000.1 Thus, it becomes the primary layer of exposure, with the FMIT policy providing excess coverage over the self-retained limit. As an excess policy, FMIT’s obligation under section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (2011), was to offer UM coverage at the time the trust was initially created, which it did.
Affirmed.
WARNER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Cernogorsky, 211 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ch does not provide primary liability insurance that includes coverage for liabilities arising from the maintenance, operation, or use of a specifically insured motor vehicle.” § 627.727(2), Fla. Stat. (2016); see also Hampton v. Fla. Mun. Ins. Tr., 152 So. 3d 855, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding the insurer “was not required to include uninsured motorist protection as part of its provisions” where the subject policy provided “excess insurance and not primary insurance for automobile accidents” and the insur…
Authorities Cited
- Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 33 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)