Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Moreover, even if the county and circuit courts' interpretation was supported by the plain language of the policy provision, such a provision would be inconsistent with the purposes of the PIP statute and would have to be construed and applied to be in full compliance with the code. See § 627.418(1), Fla....

...s to Excelsior without creating a corresponding duty to provide coverage. Pomona Park also urges that if the Department of Insurance does not disapprove an insurance policy form which is defective under Section 627.411, Florida Statutes (1977), then Section 627.418, Florida Statutes (1977), requires the courts to extend coverage so as to protect policy holders against the defect....

...t violated an alcoholic beverage law or otherwise transgressed certain civil special law duties of those "engaged in the business." Pomona Park has also asserted that Excelsior's policy form violates Section 627.411, Florida Statutes (1977) and that Section 627.418, Florida Statutes (1977) requires us to construe the policy so that it conforms to the standards of the former statute. That argument is without merit. Section 627.418 is designed to guarantee that the courts not bar coverage to policy holders because their contracts contain a condition or provision which violates the insurance code....

...Section 627.411 requires the Department of Insurance to disapprove inconsistent, ambiguous, misleading, illegible, or deceptive insurance forms and sets additional standards for disability insurance. We do not view the policy form in issue here as violative of Section 627.411. Neither does Section 627.418 invite free-wheeling judicial revision of insurance contracts that might be considered defective under Section 627.411....

...(2009) (allowing the Department *553 to impose a fine “against any person found in the proceeding to have violated any provision of the Insurance Code”); id. § 624.4211(1) (allowing the Department to impose a fine on an insurance company instead of suspending or revoking a certificate of authority). Most notably, in section 627.418(1), Florida Statutes (2009), the Legislature seems to suggest that in the absence of an express penalty, courts should assume that a policy provision is valid despite noncomplianee with the Insurance Code. See § 627.418(1), Fla....

...code shall not be thereby rendered invalid, . . . but shall be construed and applied in accordance with such conditions and provisions as would have applied had such policy, rider, or endorsement been in full compliance with this code. Id. (quoting § 627.418(1), Fla....

...approved by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (Regulation Office) before issuing BOL coverage greater than 25%. Additionally, Florida Statutes 2  Case: 14-13478 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 3 of 23 § 627.418(1) bars the Allens’ suit because the only remedy available for providing extra insurance coverage is to enforce the contract as written....

...consent on a form approved by the Regulation Office. To answer this question, we begin by interpreting § 627.7011(2). We then examine whether, even assuming USAA violated § 627.7011(2), the Allens’ complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Florida Statutes § 627.418(1). A....

...17  Case: 14-13478 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 18 of 23 not breach the contract because the Allens paid for and received the 50% BOL coverage in the policy. B. Florida Statutes § 627.418(1) Alternatively, even if USAA had violated § 627.7011(2), the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint. Florida Statutes § 627.418(1) mandates dismissal because a policy whose limits exceed Florida insurance coverage limitations must be enforced as written. Again, under Florida law we examine the statute’s plain language. See Atwater, 95 So. 3d at 90. Section 627.418(1) states, Any insurance policy, rider, or endorsement otherwise valid which contains any condition or provision not in compliance with the requirements of this code shall not be thereby rendered invalid, except as provided in s....

...in this code, such insurer shall be liable to the insured or his or her beneficiary for the full amount stated in the policy in addition to any other penalties that may be imposed under this code. The only plausible reading of § 627.418(1) is that where a policy provides coverage beyond any limitation in the code, the court must enforce the terms of the contract as written unless the code expressly authorizes other penalties. 6 Florida Statutes § 627.415 is inapplicable here....

...a part of the contract unless such portion is set forth in full in the policy.” Fla. Stat. § 627.415. 18  Case: 14-13478 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 19 of 23 The first sentence of § 627.418(1) governs situations where an insurer issues a policy providing less than the minimum coverage required by law....

...5th DCA 1994) (“When an insurance policy does not conform to the requirements of statutory law, a court must write a provision into the policy to comply with the law, or construe the policy as providing the coverage required by law.”). By contrast, the second sentence of § 627.418(1) governs the opposite situation, where a policy provides more than the maximum coverage allowed by law. When that occurs, a policyholder can only enforce the contract as written or recover “other penalties that may be imposed under this code.” Fla. Stat. § 627.418(1). The Allens have not pointed to “any other penalties that may be imposed under this code.” Id. As such, the plain language of § 627.418(1) bars the Allens’ attempt to recover premium payments. Nonetheless, the Allens argue the second sentence of § 627.418(1) is irrelevant to their claim for relief....

...rre, inconsistent results. According to the Allens, a noncompliant insurance policy must be construed as if “in full compliance with this code,” yet at the same time also be construed “for the full amount stated in the policy.” Fla. Stat. § 627.418(1)....

...20  Case: 14-13478 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 21 of 23 internally inconsistent.” Mancuso v. State, 636 So. 2d 753, 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint because § 627.418(1) mandates enforcement of the Allens’ policies as written. IV....

...otherwise valid which contains any condition or provision not in compliance with the requirements of this code shall ... be construed and applied in accordance with such conditions and provisions as would have applied had such policy... been in full compliance with this code." § 627.418(1), Fla....

...represent losses to property the unit owners — as opposed to River Manor — were obligated to insure, the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions. GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ„ concur. . We note that section 627.418(1), Florida Statutes (2005), codifies the principle that insurance policies that are inconsistent with any statute within the Insurance Code must "be construed and applied in accordance with such conditions and provisions as would have applied had such policy ......

...st write a provision into the policy to comply with the law, or construe the policy as providing the coverage required by law.”). In Sawyer v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 09-cv-61288, 2010 WL 1372447 (S.D.Fla. March 31, 2010), the court found that section 627.418 did not require that insurance policies conform to statutes "outside of the Insurance Code.” Id....

...Section 627.637 states that if any insurer in Florida writes a health insurance contract in a form that is not in compliance with the statute, the contract remains valid and "shall be construed as though its term and provisions were in conformity with [the requirements] of this chapter." Most notably, in Section 627.418(1), the legislature seems to suggest that in the absence of an express penalty, courts should assume that a policy provision is valid despite noncompliance with the Insurance Code. Specifically, Section 627.418(1) states that: [a]ny insurance policy, rider, or endorsement otherwise valid which contains any condition or provision not in compliance with the requirements of this code shall not be thereby rendered invalid, except as provided in s.627.415, but shall be construed and applied in accordance with such conditions and provisions as would have applied had such policy, rider, or endorsement been in full compliance with this code. While Section 627.418(1) may have been intended to benefit policyholders and not insurance companies, its language is general and appears to apply to the statute at issue in this case. See Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Pomona Park Bar & Package Store, 369 So.2d 938, 942 (Fla., 1979)(holding that where the Department of Insurance has not detected a violation in a policy, "Section 627.418 is designed to guarantee that the courts not bar coverage to policy holders because their contracts contain a condition or provision which violates the [I]nsurance [C]ode")....

...These express penalty provisions that appear throughout the Insurance Code suggest three things: (1) that the legislature is perfectly capable of crafting an express penalty for Section 627.701(4)(a); (2) in the absence of an express penalty, the legislature may have intended for the deductible to be valid pursuant to Section 627.418(1); and (3) even if the legislature did not intend to make the deductible valid in the event of a violation of the statute, it would be difficult for this Court to craft 4 penalty that makes the deductible invalid....

...d above and this statute. Appellant seeks reversal on three grounds. First, appellant argues that invalidating the limitation period is an unconstitutional impairment of a contract and that courts may not rewrite insurance policies to find coverage. Section 627.418(1), Florida Statutes (1989), specifically states that any insurance policy which contains any condition or provision not in compliance with the requirements of the insurance code (of which the med pay insurance statute is a part) shal...

...(2009) (allowing the Department to impose a fine “against any person found in the proceeding to have violated any provision of the Insurance Code”); id. § 624.4211(1) (allowing the Department to impose a fine on an insurance company instead of suspending or revoking a certificate of authority). Most notably, in section 627.418(1), Florida Statutes (2009), the Legislature seems to suggest that in the absence of an express penalty, courts should assume that a policy provision is valid despite noncompliance with the Insurance Code. See § 627.418(1), Fla....

...tion of § 627.701 was intentional. See Chalfonte, 526 F.Supp.2d at 1256. See, e.g., §§ 627.6474 ("[a]ny contract provision that violates this section is void"), 627.415 ("[a]ny policy provision in violation of this section is invalid"). Moreover, § 627.418(1) states that "[a]ny insurance policy, rider, or endorsement otherwise valid which contains any condition or provision not in compliance with the requirements of this code shall not be thereby rendered invalid . . ., but shall be construed and applied in accordance with such conditions and provisions as would have applied had such policy, rider, or endorsement been in full compliance with this code." See § 627.418(1)....

...allowing the Department of Insurance to "order the insurer to discontinue the issuance of policies for which the required filing was not made, until such time as the office determines that the required filing is properly submitted."" Id. Moreover, "Section 627.418(1) states that: [a]ny insurance policy, rider, or endorsement otherwise valid which contains any condition or provision not in compliance with the requirements of this code shall not be thereby rendered invalid, except as provided in s....

...The Suazos contend that section 627.412(1), Florida Statutes (1989), requires all insurance contracts to contain provisions mandated by the insurance code and that an insurance policy not in compliance with the insurance code must be construed and applied as if it were in full compliance. § 627.418, Fla....

...nty-four students to maintain tort liability coverage of not less than $100,000 per person. The policy issued to the Del Bustos was not in compliance with that minimum limit thus, must be construed and applied as if in full compliance with the code. § 627.418, Fla....

...City Place South Tower, LLC, 2008 WL 4722106, * 6 (S.D.Fla. Oct.21, 2008). There is no evidence of fraud, accident or mistake in the record. As a result, rescission of the entire Policy is not a proper remedy. Another possible solution identified by Plaintiff is that pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.418, noncompliance with Fla....

...any limitations otherwise provided in this code, such insurer shall be liable to the insured or his or her beneficiary for the full amount stated in the policy in addition *1352 to any other penalties that may be imposed under this code. Fla. Stat. § 627.418....

...urance company does not follow the insurance code, finds out after a claim is made that its provisions violate the law, and then attempts to void the entire policy and not pay the claim. (Reply, DE 221, p. 13.) Defendants are correct in stating that § 627.418 "is designed to guarantee that the courts not bar coverage to policy holders because their contracts contain a condition or provision which violates the insurance code." Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Pomona Park Bar & Package Store, 369 So.2d 938, 942 (Fla.1979). However, as Judge Middlebrooks explained, even though § 627.418(1) may have intended to benefit policy holders and not insurance companies, the statute suggests that, in the absence of an express penalty in the statute, courts should assume that a policy provision is valid despite noncompliance with the Insurance Code....

...However, this Court concludes that voiding only the endorsement and allowing the Policy to remain in force without the exclusions would raise grave constitutional concerns. Therefore, like Judge Middlebrooks in QBE, this Court concludes that pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.418(1), the endorsement provision is valid despite noncompliance with the Insurance Code....

...Instead, the Policy provides for payment of the full amount of sales tax on a “comparable” vehicle. Even if subsection (9) were mandatory, the parties would still be free to contract for this coverage. See Green v. Life & Health of Am., 704 So.2d 1386, 1390-91 (Fla.1998); also Fla. Stat. § 627.418 (1); Allen v....

...If failing to satisfy the code’s reporting or surplus line requirements voids a policy, the code regulates the policy — just as the code regulates an insurer by revoking a license. In any event, an unreported policy typically remains valid under Section 627.418....

...in force during the Insured’s lifetime for 2 years from the Issue Date. An increase in the Specified Amount will not be contested after it has been in force during the Insured’s lifetime for 2 years from its effective date. (Exh. 5). Fla. Stat. § 627.418 (2011) provides: Any insurance policy, rider, or endorsement otherwise valid which contains any condition or provision not in compliance with the requirements of this code shall not be thereby rendered invalid, except as provided in sectio...

...Since liability coverage on an excess policy is coextensive to the uninsured motorist coverage, the Midland’s excess policy in the instant case provides uninsured motorist coverage beginning at $500,000 to $4,000,-000. We acknowledge but reject appellee’s contention that section 627.418, Florida Statutes (1985), mandates lowering the uninsured motorist coverage limit below the lower limit of liability coverage....

2d 1386, 1390-91 (Fla.1998); also Fla. Stat. § 627.418(1); Allen v. USAA Ca. Ins. Co., 790 F.3d 1274

...Even if Insurers’ policies prevented them from reimbursing S-coded claims, statutory provisions override “[a]ny insurance policy, rider, or endorsement otherwise valid which contains any condition or provision not in compliance with the requirements of” Florida’s insurance statutes. § 627.418(1), Fla....