ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT S. KORSCHUN, 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.
Allstate Insurance appealed a judgment allowing its insured, Korschun, to proceed to arbitration on an uninsured motorist claim despite failing to report a hit-and-run accident to police within 24 hours as required by the policy. The court reversed, holding that Korschun failed to demonstrate that Allstate was not prejudiced by the late notice, and remanded for a new trial where Korschun could present evidence of non-prejudice.
An insured cannot proceed to arbitration on an uninsured motorist claim for a hit-and-run accident without establishing that the insurer was not prejudiced by failure to report within the required 24-hour period. While prejudice is presumed for non-compliance, the insurer is not automatically relieved of liability if the insured proves no actual prejudice occurred.
[1] A 24-hour notice requirement to the police or appropriate government authority is a valid provision and generally a condition precedent to obtaining uninsured motorist co…
[2] An insurer is not automatically relieved of liability for non-compliance with a notice requirement if the insured can demonstrate that the insurer has not been prejudiced…
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“the insurer will not automatically be relieved of liability simply by showing that notice was not given within the time provided for in the policy if the insured can demonstrate that the insurer has not thereby been prejudiced”
Establishes the burden-shifting rule: while non-compliance with notice requirements triggers a presumption of prejudice, the insurer loses this presumption if the insured proves actual non-prejudice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Korschun was involved in a hit-and-run automobile accident and filed an uninsured motorist claim with Allstate Insurance. Korschun did not repo…
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 Prejudice To Insurer cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
The plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company appeals from a final judgment in favor of its insured, the defendant Robert S. Kor-schun, in a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, which judgment permits the defendant Korschun to proceed to arbitration on his uninsured motorist claim against Allstate. Allstate contends that the defendant Korschun is not entitled to arbitrate this claim for lack of coverage because Kor-schun did not report to the police the hit and run automobile accident giving rise to the claim within 24 hours after the accident in violation of an insurance policy provision requiring such notice.
The law is clear that a 24 hour notice requirement to the police or appropriate government authority is a valid provision and generally a condition precedent to obtaining uninsured motorist coverage in a hit and run automobile accident. The reason for such a requirement is to allow the police and other interested parties (such as the insurance company) an opportunity to investigate, search and possibly apprehend the hit and run driver, thus facilitating inquiry whether the hit and run vehicle was in fact uninsured and allowing the insurer to enforce its subrogation rights against a negligent uninsured hit and run motorist. McKay v. Highlands Insurance Co., 287 So. 2d 393, 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
While prejudice to the insurer is presumed in the case of non-compliance with such a notice requirement, the insurer will not automatically be relieved of liability simply by showing that notice was not given within the time provided for in the policy if the insured can demonstrate that the insurer has not thereby been prejudiced. Laster v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 293 So. 2d 83, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
See Tiedtke v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York, 222 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1969).
We reverse and remand for a new trial. The defendant Korschun did not report to the police the hit and run accident giving rise to his uninsured motorist claim within 24 hours of the accident and failed to establish in the trial court that the insurer Allstate was not prejudiced by the failure to so notify. A troop of boy scouts was camped near the scene of the accident and the defendant Korschun failed to show that none of these young men saw or could identify the phantom vehicle which allegedly caused the accident. A prompt reporting of the accident to the police may have led to such a witness among the boy scout troop. The defendant Korschun, however, was cut off at trial during the presentation of his case with a ruling in his favor and may very well have had other evidence establishing that no one in the boy scout troop had any knowledge concerning the accident, which evidence he was not permitted to present.
Consequently, we reverse the judgment entered and remand the cause for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Derwin Brennan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 359 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ny, 287 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Laster v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 293 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Barnes v. Travelers Insurance Company, 342 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Compare: Allstate Insurance Company v. Korschun, 350 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
-
de Ferrari v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 613 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…., 336 So. 2d 71 (Fla.1976); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Perez, 384 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1381 (Fla.1980); Torres v. Protective Nat’l Ins. Co., 358 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Korschun, 350 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1216 (Fla.1978). We conclude that prejudice is not at issue when an insurer’s reasonable request for an I.M.E. is refused by an insured. The Macias case in no way created a new duty to establish prejudic…
-
Donnell v. Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 439 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1982); Tucker v. Seward, 400 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Torres v. Protective National Insurance Co. of Omaha, 358 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Korschun, 350 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1216 (Fla.1978). Reversed and remanded for an adjudication on the issues of failure to cooperate and prejudice to the rights of the appellee.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tiedtke v. Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 222 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1969)
- Augustin Gonzalez v. Dade Commonwealth Title & Abstract Co., 293 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Dan v. McKAY, 287 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)