Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

January 3, 2014 by admin

Circuit Court Order: Ineffective revocation of election of non-stacked UM coverage

21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 66a



Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2101GOLD

Insurance — Stacking — Uninsured/underinsured motorist —
Where insureds’ policy clearly and unambiguously excludes stacking of
uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, and statute provides that limitations
accepted by insureds will continue unless insureds request deletion of
limitation and pay appropriate premium for additional coverage. insurer was not
obligated to provide stacking coverage at non-stacking rate when insureds
notified insurer that they wanted to revoke written election against stacked
coverage and insurer failed to provide premium statement showing increased
charge for increased coverage

HOWARD GOLDING and BETH GOLDING, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants and
Third-Party Defendants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant/Counter-Claimant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Circuit Court, 15th
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Circuit Civil Division. Case No.
50 2008 CA 6652 MB, Division AB. October 3, 2013. Jeffrey Dana Gillen, Judge.

ORDER

GRANTING STATE FARM’S

SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION

AND

DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION

THIS MATTER came before the Court on August 12, 2013, for oral argument on
opposing written motions for summary judgment. Before the Court were three
motions; two by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY [hereinafter,
“State Farm”] and one by HOWARD and BETH GOLDING [hereinafter, “the Goldings”].
The Court’s oral ruling on State Farm’s June 10, 2013 motion disposed of the
Goldings’ motion.1 The Court reviewed the
transcript of the August 12, 2013 hearing and the two alternative proposed
orders, all three of which the Court received on September 25. The Court also
did its own research. Based on that review and research and for the reasons set
forth below, the Court grants State Farm’s summary-judgment motion.
Florida law governing determination of summary-judgment motions is clear. As
the Fourth District instructed in Ara Yardum v. Andrew Scalese, et al.,
799 So. 2d 382, 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D2713a], under
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510:

Summary judgment is proper only if there are no genuine issues of
material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130
(Fla. 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly S390a]. Where no genuine issue of material fact
is shown to exist, the only question for the appellate court is whether the
summary judgment was properly granted under the law. See Wesley Constr. Co.
v. Lane,
323 So. 2d 649, 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). If even the slightest doubt
exists as to any issue of material fact, a summary judgment must be reversed.
See Beary v. Gay, 732 So. 2d 478, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) [25 Fla. L.
Weekly D1237a].

Furthermore, as expressly mandated by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c), “[t]he
judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings and summary
judgment evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
In this case, determination of this motion turns on pure questions of law
involving insurance-policy language and statute language.
In the majority opinion in a recent 4-3 decision authored by Justice Labarga
in Washington National Insurance Corporation v. Sydelle Ruderman, et al.,
117 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly S511a], the Supreme Court
reminded that:

Where the language in an insurance contract is plain and
unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in accordance with the plain
meaning so as to give effect to the policy as written. See State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez,
70 So. 3d 566, 569-70 (Fla. 2011) [36 Fla. L.
Weekly S469a]. In construing insurance contracts, “courts should read each
policy as a whole, endeavoring to give every provision its full meaning and
operative effect.” U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So. 2d 871,
877 (Fla. 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly S811a] (quoting Anderson, 756 So. 2d
at 34); see also Swire Pac. Holdings v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So. 2d 161,
166 (Fla. 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly S307d] (same). Courts should “avoid simply
concentrating on certain limited provisions to the exclusion of the totality of
others.” Id. at 165. However, “[p]olicy language is considered to be
ambiguous . . . if the language ‘is susceptible to more than one reasonable
interpretation, one providing coverage and the other limiting coverage.’ ”
Menendez, 70 So. 3d at 570 (quoting Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR Inc.,
889 So. 2d 779, 785 (Fla. 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly S774a] (quoting Swire,
845 So. 2d at 165)).

The Supreme Court in Ruderman instructed further:

As we stated in Berkshire Life Insurance Co. v. Adelberg, 698
So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1997), “[i]t has long been a tenet of Florida insurance law
that an insurer, as the writer of an insurance policy, is bound by the language
of the policy, which is to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and
strictly against the insurer.” Id. at 830. Thus where, as here, one
reasonable interpretation of the policy provisions would provide coverage, that
is the construction which must be adopted. We reiterated this special rule for
construction of insurance contracts in Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid.
& Guar. Co.,
913 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly S633a], where
we stated:

Under Florida law, insurance contracts are construed according to
their plain meaning. Ambiguities are construed against the insurer and in favor
of coverage. As we recently said:

[W]e must follow the guiding principle that this Court has
consistently applied that insurance contracts must be construed in accordance
with the plain language of the policy. Further, we consider that “[i]f the
relevant policy language is susceptible to more than one reasonable
interpretation, one providing coverage and the [other] limiting coverage, the
insurance policy is considered ambiguous.” An ambiguous provision is construed
in favor of the insured and strictly against the drafter. Taurus Holdings,
913 So. 2d at 532 (quoting Swire, 845 So. 2d at 165 (citations
omitted) (quoting Anderson, 756 So. 2d at 34.)).

Applying the foregoing insurance-policy-interpretation instructions, this
Court concludes that the policies’ language, particularly the declarations page,
makes it clear that all three of the automobile policies the Goldings had with
State Farm, including the one covering and in force for the vehicle involved in
the January 12, 2007 accident, clearly and unambiguously excluded stacking of
uninsured/underinsured-motorist coverage.2
However, even if one were to determine that the policy language was ambiguous
and susceptible to more than one interpretation, the language of the applicable
statute is not.
In Florida Department of Children and Families v. P.E., 14 So. 3d 228
(Fla. 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly S449a] the Supreme Court reminded:

This issue is one of statutory interpretation; accordingly, our
review is de novo. Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. J.A., 963 So. 2d 189, 194
(Fla. 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly S445a]. Legislative intent guides statutory
analysis, and to discern that intent we must look first to the language of the
statute and its plain meaning. Knowles v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc.,
898 So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla. 2004) [30 Fla. L. Weekly S788a]. Where the statute’s
language is clear or unambiguous, courts need not employ principles of statutory
construction to determine and effectuate legislative intent. See Polite v.
State,
973 So. 2d 1107, 1111 (Fla. 2007) [33 Fla. L. Weekly S69a]; Holly
v. Auld,
450 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984). Further, “[i]t is axiomatic that
all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent
whole.” Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d
452, 455 (Fla. 1992).

Id. at 234.
In pertinent part, § 627.727(9), Fla. Stat. provides:

In connection with the offer authorized by this subsection, insurers
shall inform the named insured, applicant, or lessee, on a form approved by the
office, of the limitations imposed under this subsection and that such coverage
is an alternative to coverage without such limitations. If this form is signed
by a named insured, applicant, or lessee, it shall be conclusively presumed that
there was an informed, knowing acceptance of such limitations on behalf of all
insureds. When the named insured, applicant, or lessee has initially accepted
such limitations, such acceptance shall apply to any policy which renews,
extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy unless the named
insured requests deletion of such limitations and pays the appropriate
premium for such coverage.


[emphasis added]
In opposition to State Farm’s motion, viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to them, the Goldings argued that once Mr. Golding orally notified
State Farm that he wanted to revoke his written election against stacked
coverage, especially where State Farm did not provide the Goldings with a
premium statement showing an increased charge for the increased coverage, State
Farm was “stuck with giving stacking coverage at the non-stacking rate.” [T
73-74]3 That argument, however, flies in
the face of the unambiguous language of § 627.727(9) to which this Court must
ascribe its plain meaning.
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that State Farm’s motion for summary
judgment is granted and the Golding’s competing motion for summary judgment is
denied.
__________________
1The Court did not and does not now rule
on State Farm’s July 22, 2013 motion.
2It is significant that, viewing the facts
in the light most favorable to the Goldings, even though the Goldings claim to
have orally revoked their previous election against stacking, that change
preceded the accident by approximately two-and-a-half years and it is undisputed
that the Goldings received policy renewal notices clearly showing that the
coverage was not stacked.
3Although the Goldings suggested to the
Court that there is case law supporting this theory, [T 67] they provided none
and the Court’s research disclosed none.

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982