STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
EARL ANDREW GLOVER, 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 held that the 1963 amendment to F.S.A. § 627.0851(1) was not retroactive. Therefore, a prior rejection of uninsured motorist coverage did not apply to a new policy issued after the amendment.
State Farm issued a policy in 1960 with a written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage. In 1963, the statute was amended to allow rejection on ren…
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 Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments cases and more on FLexlaw
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals from a final judgment holding that Earl Andrew Glover, ap-pellee, and plaintiff in the lower court, was entitled to coverage of uninsured motorist protection. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to apply the final proviso of F.S.A. § 627.0851(1) retroactively, as amended on July 1, 1963.
Norman E. Sharp owned a 1956 Chevrolet and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company issued a policy on December 13, 1960, on said car and Sharp executed in writing a rejection of uninsured motorist coverage on December 11, 1961, according to F.S.A. § 627.0851(1), describing said Chevrolet.
Effective July 1, 1963, the following amendment was added to said statute:
“ * * * provided further that, unless the named insured requests such coverage in writing, the coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy where the named insured had re*107jected the coverage in connection with a policy previously issued to him by the same insurer.”
On November 16, 1963, State Farm issued a new policy covering a 1962 Comet and on November 24, 1963, an accident occurred with an uninsured motorist. State Farm did not receive a rejection in writing on this new policy but depended on the December 11, 1961, rejection.
The lower court held that the 1963 amendment of F.S.A. § 627.0851(1) was not retroactive and this court affirms the judgment of the lower court.
Affirmed.
ANDREWS and CROSS, J J., and LEAVENGOOD, C. RICHARD, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Inez Sheffield, 375 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…g policy which simply covered an additional automobile for an additional premium, constituted a “separate and severable” contract which required the company to offer UM coverage upon its issuance. Cf. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Glover, 202 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Because, for these reasons, the “renewal policy” exception to Section 627.727(1) did not apply, Hartford was obliged under the statute to offer UM coverage to the plaintiff at the time it issued the amended policy.3 Since it ad…
-
Glover v. AETNA Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…r vehicles. This complied with the State Insurance Department’s Rule 4-28.02. Although the courts in Davis v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 172 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Glover, 202 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), indicated that rejection of uninsured motorist coverage should be in writing, this was not an issue nor determinative of the issues in the cases, just gratuitous language. The statute does require that once uninsured motorist c…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Duffy, 237 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…visions of F.S. 627.0851 which requires uninsured motorist coverage in all policies unless the insured shall ‘reject the coverage’. The defendant further relies upon the case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Glover, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 106. * * *” On this stipulation above the trial court rendered the final judgment herein appealed. The final judgment found that there was a waiver or rejection of uninsured motorist coverage as to the original policy 5002159 but there was no rejection…