CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 566533
...The Alvarezes filed suit in March 1993 against FIGA, their insurance agency and their insurance agent. Pertinent to this appeal, they alleged that FIGA was vicariously liable for MCA's failure to notify them of the policy's cancellation and failure to comply with section 626.9201, Florida Statutes (1991)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7698, 2010 WL 2219729
...The trial court entered judgment for Appellee in the amount of $850,000, which was based upon the $1,000,000 of coverage under the CRC policy less Appellee's $150,000 settlement with Lloyd's. The insurance policies at issue in this case are governed by the Surplus Lines Law, sections
626.913-626.937, Florida Statutes (2005). Section
626.9201 provides in pertinent part: (1) An insurer issuing a policy providing coverage for property, casualty, surety, or marine insurance shall give the named insured at least 45 days' advance written notice of nonrenewal....
...Pizzarelli,
761 So.2d 294, 298 (Fla.2000). The plain meaning construction of the statute should honor the obvious legislative intent and policy behind its enactment. See Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Auth. v. K.E. Morris Alignment Serv., Inc.,
444 So.2d 926 (Fla.1983). Section
626.9201 is a consumer protection statute....
...erage but did not do so for whatever reason because in those circumstances, the result would be the same as if renewal coverage was never offered i.e., the insured would be left without coverage. Had the Legislature intended for the provisions of section 626.9201 to not apply when the insurer intended to renew the policy, it could have easily said so as it did elsewhere in the Florida Insurance Code....
...5th DCA 2000) (explaining that the provisions of section
627.728 do not apply when the insurer offers to renew the policy and the insured does not timely pay the required renewal premium in order to accept the offer). The absence of similar language in section
626.9201 supports our conclusion that the statute applies notwithstanding the insurer's intent to renew the policy....
...1st DCA 2006) ("Where the legislature has used a term in one section of a statute but omitted the term in another section, the court will not read the term into the sections where it was omitted."). It was undisputed that Lloyd's did not provide notice of nonrenewal of the CRC policy to Parthenon. As stated above, section 626.9201 does not require any intent by the insurer not to renew the policy; rather the statute provides that if the 45-day notice is not provided for whatever reason, then the coverage shall remain in effect. Therefore, under the clear and unambiguous terms of section 626.9201(3), coverage under the CRC policy continued until the effective date of the Sapphire Blue policy. Our plain meaning interpretation of section 626.9201 does not overlook the last sentence of subsection (3), which provides that "[t]he premium for the coverage shall remain the same during any such extension period." This language does not condition the continuation of coverage provided by section 626.9201 upon the advance payment of an additional premium....
...And, in any event, this language has no bearing on Parthenon's negligent procurement claim against Appellants. To the extent that Lloyd's may have been entitled to offset any unpaid premium for the extension period against the coverage that it was obligated to provide Parthenon under the CRC policy by operation of section 626.9201, that issue was subsumed in the settlement of Parthenon's coverage claim against Lloyd's....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6856, 2000 WL 726439
...eneral business insurance policy had terminated. We conclude that the policy was still in effect when the subject fire occurred. The insurance code requires a liability insurer to give its insured “at least 45 days advance notice of nonrenewal.” § 626.9201 Fla....
...Upon receipt of the notice, the insured procured a new policy with another carrier providing for coverage to begin on September 5th. Meanwhile a fire occurred on September 6th causing damage. We reject Britamco’s contention that, because the insured obtained the new poli *340 cy, its coverage terminated on September 5th. Section 626.9201(3) provides: “If an insurer fails to provide the 15-day ......
...The premium for the coverage shall remain the same during any such extension period.” [e.s.] By its plain meaning, this provision is applicable only when the insurer has failed to give the 45 day notice. Here the insurer gave 48 days notice before the revised termination date of September 8th. An insurer is free under section 626.9201 to extend a policy termination date to afford the insured with the full 45 day notice contemplated by the statute....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2012 WL 1252507, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52085, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 231
...r dispute that the 200 East project was a condominium project as defined in the Residential Condominium/Townhome Exclusion. . James River points out in its response that as a surplus lines insurer, it is not covered by §
627.4133, but is covered by §
626.9201, a substantially similar statute. Upon a review of these two statutory provisions, any case law interpreting §
627.4133 would also apply to §
626.9201....
