AMERICAN MOTORISTS INS. CO., APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD SETH WEINGARTEN, A MINOR BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER, CHARLES WEINGARTEN, AND CHARLES WEINGARTEN, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
This case concerns whether an insurance company must provide underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage equal to the bodily injury liability coverage when the insured was not explicitly offered and did not reject it. The court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the insured, holding that the insurer failed to prove the insured rejected the additional UIM coverage.
Yes, the insurer was required to provide uninsured motorist coverage equal to the bodily injury liability coverage because the insured was not offered and did not reject it. The insured is also entitled to stack the coverage amounts from the four insured vehicles.
[1] Underinsured motorist insurance coverage is provided to the extent of bodily injury liability coverage when the insured is not offered and does not reject such coverage.
[2] An informed rejection of additional uninsured motorist coverage cannot be implied solely from an insured's signature on an application for lower limits of 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“underinsured motorist insurance to the extent of the bodily injury liability coverage was provided the insured who was not offered and did not reject coverage to that extent, as provided in Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975)”
This quote summarizes the trial court's finding that the insurer was obligated to provide UIM coverage equal to the liability coverage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe insured testified he was not offered uninsured motorist (UM) coverage equal to his bodily injury liability coverage and did not reject it. The ins…
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 Rejection Of Insurance Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Acting Chief Judge.
The insurer appeals from a summary judgment for the insured, finding that (a) underinsured motorist insurance to the extent of the bodily injury liability coverage was provided the insured who was not offered and did not reject coverage to that extent, as provided in Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975); and (b) the insured was entitled to stack the amounts of additional uninsured motorist coverage thus provided by the policy, which insured against bodily injury liability in respect to four vehicles. The insured testified without contradiction that he was not offered uninsured motorist coverage equal to the bodily injury liability coverage afforded, and therefore that he had not rejected such coverage. The insured did not sign a written rejection of additional uninsured motorist coverage, and the only countervailing evidence was testimony by the agent, who testified only that his general practice was to offer insureds uninsured motorist coverage in accordance with Section 627.727(1).
We agree with the trial court that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact; that an informed rejection of additional uninsured motorist coverage cannot, without extrinsic evidence, be implied from the insured’s signature on an application for uninsured motorist coverage to lower limits; that the insurer otherwise offered no competent evidence that the insured rejected the additional coverage required by Section 627.727(1); and that the insured is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Green, 327 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 1179 (Fla.1976); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Farmer, 330 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 342 So. 2d 1101 (Fla.1977); Hunt v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 349 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Appellees’ petition for fees on account of appellate legal services is granted, the amount to be determined and awarded in the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Dorman K. Kimbrell v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 420 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1982)…r amount than that which the insurer is required to make available is an issue to be decided by the trier of fact. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Beaver, 355 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); contra, American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Weingarten, 355 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In deciding this factual issue, the trier of fact may consider whether the insurer offered the insured the full amount of uninsured motorist coverage. The making of an express offer, however, is not disposi-tive of the question…
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Spencer, 397 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 294 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Wilson v. National Indemnity Co., 302 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. v. Beaver, 355 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); American Motorist’s Ins. Co. v. Weingarten, 355 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The statute’s requirements are not met if the agent’s knowledge of rejection is founded only upon his general, routine office practice, and not upon an independent recollection of a specific rejection. See Bernstein v. Liberty M…
-
Adams v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 574 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…formed rejection of additional uninsured motorist coverage cannot, without extrinsic evidence, be implied from the insured’s signature on an application for uninsured motorist coverage to lower lim-its....” American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Weingarten, 355 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Zisook v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 440 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). An insured can be bound to a rejection of uninsured motorists coverage evidenced by a document signed by the insured, thereby entitling the issu…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Green, 327 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Farmer, 330 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Hunt v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 349 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)