From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

RUIZ v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY CAS

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 15, 1983
441 So. 2d 681 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

No. 83-620.

October 25, 1983. Rehearing Denied December 15, 1983.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Milton A. Friedman, J.

Michael J. Silverstein, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham Lane and Shelley H. Leinicke, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.


Ruiz, the defendant below in a declaratory action involving uninsured motor vehicle limits, appeals a judgment in favor of Prudential. For the reasons which follow, we reverse and remand with directions to enter judgment in favor of Ruiz.

Ruiz was insured under her father's Prudential automobile liability policy. The policy, which had been renewed annually for four years, indicated bodily injury limits of $10,000/$20,000. The policy also indicated a selection of uninsured motor vehicle limits of $10,000/$20,000. On June 19, 1982, Ruiz was injured in an automobile accident. After exhausting the $10,000 bodily injury limit of her father's policy and the $10,000 bodily injury limit of the at-fault driver's policy, Ruiz sought $100,000 in uninsured motor vehicle coverage from Prudential. Prudential, in turn, sought, successfully, a declaratory judgment that Ruiz was entitled only to the $10,000 uninsured motor vehicle limit indicated on the policy.

In 1980 our legislature amended section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1979), by, inter alia, adding the following language:

Each insurer shall at least annually notify the named insured of his options as to coverage required by this section. Such notice shall be part of the notice of premium, shall provide for a means to allow the insured to request such coverage and shall be given in a manner approved by the Department of Insurance.

Act of July 9, 1980, ch. 80-396, 1980 Fla. Laws 1587, 1588 (codified at § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (1981)). Prudential failed to comply with the clear legislative mandate of this language. We, therefore, hold that Ruiz was protected by uninsured motor vehicle limits of $100,000/$300,000.

Reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of the defendant.


Summaries of

RUIZ v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY CAS

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 15, 1983
441 So. 2d 681 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

RUIZ v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY CAS

Case Details

Full title:GEORGINA RUIZ, APPELLANT, v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Dec 15, 1983

Citations

441 So. 2d 681 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Citing Cases

West American Insurance Co. v. Lloyd

PER CURIAM. We affirm on the authority of Ferrigno v. Progressive American Insurance Co., 426 So.2d 1218…

Nationwide Prop. Cas. v. Marchesano

But that Eckert was a stronger case in favor of the insurer does not, in our view, detract from the…