40
Fla. L. Weekly D21a
Fla. L. Weekly D21a
Insurance
— Automobile — Excess coverage — Uninsured motorist — Trial court properly
entered declaratory judgment determining that Florida Municipal Insurance Trust
agreement with city-member provided excess insurance and not primary insurance
for automobile accidents — Self-retention endorsement providing that Trust
member would not only cover claims within self-retained limit but would provide
for its own defense of such matters was not a deductible provision, but
provided primary layer of exposure, with FMIT policy providing excess coverage
over self-retained limit — Accordingly, Trust’s only obligation under statute
was to offer UM coverage at time trust was initially created, which it did
— Automobile — Excess coverage — Uninsured motorist — Trial court properly
entered declaratory judgment determining that Florida Municipal Insurance Trust
agreement with city-member provided excess insurance and not primary insurance
for automobile accidents — Self-retention endorsement providing that Trust
member would not only cover claims within self-retained limit but would provide
for its own defense of such matters was not a deductible provision, but
provided primary layer of exposure, with FMIT policy providing excess coverage
over self-retained limit — Accordingly, Trust’s only obligation under statute
was to offer UM coverage at time trust was initially created, which it did
CURTIS HAMPTON and LINDA HAMPTON, his wife, Appellants, v.
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D13-3659.
December 17, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit, Broward County; Mily Rodriguez-Powell, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12010607
(03). Counsel: Nancy Little Hoffmann of Nancy Little Hoffmann, P.A., and Robert
J. McFann of McFann and Beavers, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants. E.
Bruce Johnson and Scott D. Alexander of Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper
& Hochman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D13-3659.
December 17, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit, Broward County; Mily Rodriguez-Powell, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12010607
(03). Counsel: Nancy Little Hoffmann of Nancy Little Hoffmann, P.A., and Robert
J. McFann of McFann and Beavers, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants. E.
Bruce Johnson and Scott D. Alexander of Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper
& Hochman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
(Per Curiam.) 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.
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.)
concur.)
__________________
1For this reason, the reference in a
footnote in Vigilant Insurance Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 33 So.
3d 734, 735 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), that a self-retained limit is comparable
to a deductible, although merely dicta, is not a good comparison and certainly
not accurate as applied to the policy in this case.
footnote in Vigilant Insurance Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 33 So.
3d 734, 735 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), that a self-retained limit is comparable
to a deductible, although merely dicta, is not a good comparison and certainly
not accurate as applied to the policy in this case.
* *
*
*