CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Given the above legislative history, we conclude that if a court were presented with evidence disclosing that an insurer had failed to comply with the pertinent statutes regulating its right to renew, the court could properly deem such action "arbitrary or capricious." In 1977, the legislature enacted Section 626.9702, Florida Statutes (ch....
...ms on such policy for 5 years or more solely because the insured is involved in a single traffic accident. (3) Any person or organization which violates any provision of this section shall be subject to the penalties provided in s.
627.381. Applying Section
626.9702 to the situation before us, in which the insurer's decision to nonrenew was based upon its insured's involvement in one traffic violation and one accident, not resulting, however, in the insured's driving privileges being either revo...
...hway accidents, and if the insured, a policyholder for five or more years, has been involved in a single accident for which he is at fault. We consider the court had before it competent and substantial evidence for it to find that the first prong of Section 626.9702 was not met for two reasons....
...Finally, the question of waiver is usually one for the trier of the facts. Rutig v. Lake Jem Land Co.,
155 Fla. 420,
20 So.2d 497 (1945); Davis v. Davis,
123 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). If the court considered the first statutory prong to have been waived, Sentry would have been precluded by Section
626.9702(2) from asserting Brown's involvement in the accident as the sole basis for its refusal to renew. Alternatively, the court, in considering the circumstances relating to the traffic citation, may have determined there was inadequate proof, as required by Section
626.9702(1), of a "direct, demonstrable, objective relationship between the violation ......
...ren in the vicinity. If the court concluded that there was insubstantial proof of a relationship between the violation and the increased risk of an accident, it would have been necessary in our judgment for the insurer, pursuant to the provisions of Section
626.9702, to base its nonrenewal upon both the violation and the later accident. We consider, however, that an insured's mere involvement in an accident does not provide justification under the provisions of Section
626.9702 for the insurer not to renew there must also be evidence revealing that the company's policyholder was to some extent at fault in causing the accident. This conclusion is made evident by reading the provisions of Section
626.9541(15)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), in pari materia with Section
626.9702(2)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8645, 1992 WL 191617
...fic violations that did not involve an accident or cause revocation or suspension of driving privileges without some adequate proof of a direct or demonstrable objective relationship between the violation and the increased risk of highway accidents. § 626.9702(1), Fla.Stat....
...In Sentry, the court held that the record did not contain sufficient proof of a relationship between the traffic violation and an increased risk of accident, or proof of fault regarding the traffic accident. Sentry’s decision not to renew thus violated sections
626.9541(l)(o )(3) and
626.9702(1)....
...Sentry is distinguishable. Unlike the insurer in Sentry, State Farm did not violate any statute when it refused to renew Lid-sky’s insurance policy; the non-renewal was amply documented and was not based upon any factors prohibited by sections
626.9541(l)(o )(3),
626.9702(1), or 627.-728(4)(c)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12941
...Even if it is not proved that plaintiff’s damages resulted from a breach of a duty on the part of any of the defendants, there would still remain as an issue of fact, whether the traffic violation for which plaintiff was allegedly convicted is one which evidences an increased risk of highway accidents. See Section
626.9702(1). We conclude that none of the three defendants has demonstrated conclusively the absence of genuine issues of fact on the question of liability. See Holl v. Talcott,
191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966). Reversed and remanded. . Section
626.9702(1), Florida Statutes (1983) provides: (1) No insurer shall impose or request an additional premium for automobile insurance, or refuse to renew a policy, solely because the insured or applicant was convicted of one or more traffic vi...
