From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Sternberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Sep 26, 1997
699 So. 2d 345 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Summary

holding that, by its plain language, section 627.426 applies only to cases involving liability insurance

Summary of this case from Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Visca

Opinion

Case No. 95-2217

Opinion filed September 26, 1997.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Edward Jackson, Judge.

Richard C. Singer of Kane, Williams, Singer, Planck, Donoghue Clark, P.A., Rockledge, for Appellant.

Scott R. Dwyer and Merrily T. Longacre of Scott R. Dwyer, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellee.


ON MOTION FOR REHEARING


We grant the appellant's and appellees' motions for rehearing, withdraw our opinion in this case filed November 15, 1996, and substitute therefor the following:

Sternberg, the insured, was in a car accident and applied to her insurer, State Farm, for UM benefits. State Farm denied benefits because Sternberg did not, as required in the policy, report the accident to police within 24 hours or to State Farm within 30 days. Sternberg contended that, notwithstanding her failure to report, she was entitled to coverage because State Farm did not comply with the claims administration statute which requires the insurer to notify the insured of a "coverage defense" within certain time limits. State Farm contended that the claims administration statute applies to liability insurance, but not to UM insurance. The trial court denied State Farm's motion for summary judgment based on its decision that the claims administration statute applies to a UM insurance provider, and eventually entered final judgment in Sternberg's favor.

We hold that section 627.427, Florida Statutes, does not apply to cases in which an insured is making a claim for uninsured motorists benefits. By its terms the statute applies to cases involving liability insurance:

627.426. Claims administration

* * *

(2) A liability insurer shall not be permitted to deny coverage based on a particular coverage defense unless:

(a) Within 30 days after the liability insurer knew or should have known of the coverage defense, written notice of reservation of rights to assert a coverage defense is given to the named insured by registered or certified mail sent to the last known address of the insured or by hand delivery; and

(b) Within 60 days of compliance with paragraph (a) or receipt of a summons and complaint naming the insured as a defendant, whichever is later, but in no case later than 30 days before trial, the insurer:

1. Gives written notice to the named insured by registered or certified mail of its refusal to defend the insured;

2. Obtains from the insured a nonwaiver agreement following full disclosure of the specific facts and policy provisions upon which the coverage defense is asserted and the duties, obligations, and liabilities of the insurer during and following the pendency of the subject litigation; or

3. Retains independent counsel which is mutually agreeable to the parties. Reasonable fees for the counsel may be agreed upon between the parties or, if no agreement is reached, shall be set by the court.

See Union General Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 598 So.2d 161, 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) ("The clear language of this statute indicates that it only applies to `liability insurers'.").

The final judgment in favor of Sternberg is REVERSED.

HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Sternberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Sep 26, 1997
699 So. 2d 345 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

holding that, by its plain language, section 627.426 applies only to cases involving liability insurance

Summary of this case from Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Visca
Case details for

State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Sternberg

Case Details

Full title:STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. CLARA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Sep 26, 1997

Citations

699 So. 2d 345 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Visca

However, that statute and the cases construing it are not applicable where, as here, the insured makes a…

Schultz v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co.

Having decided this case based on our construction of the term "coverage defense " in section 627.426(2),…