Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Stone’s death certificate and claim forms from Stone, Jackson paid $151,105.63 to Stone, which included the face amount of the policy and interest. On June 4, 2004, almost five years later, Stone filed a complaint against Jackson alleging a breach of contract and violation of section 627.4615, Florida Statutes (1999), on the ground that the amount paid to Stone “failed to include the correct amount of interest to the death benefit as required by Florida Statute § 627.4615.” In response, Jackson filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that, since the complaint was based exclusively on an alleged statutory violation, it was time-barred under section 95.11(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...in section 95.11(3)(f), which states that actions founded on statutory liability must be commenced within four (4) years. Stone contends that his claim is for breach of a contract because section 627.452(1), Florida Statutes (1999), 1 mandates that section 627.4615 be included in the insurance contract....

...Therefore, Stone contends that section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), providing for a five-year statute of limitations period for claims based on contract violations, should apply. Stone maintains that, although the policy did not contain the substantive provisions of section 627.4615, these provisions must be read into the policy to bring it in compliance with applicable Florida law....

...Co., 681 So.2d 747, 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Conversely, Jackson argues that Stone’s claim for interest is not based on a contractual obligation because Stone’s complaint does not allege that any policy term was breached, but refers, instead, to the alleged violation of section 627.4615. Jackson also argues that section 627.452(1) does not mandate that section 627.4615 be included in the policy. Jackson contends that, since section 627.4615 does not contain language such as “shall be included,” mandating it to be included in the insurance policy, unlike other enumerated statutes, the court should not construe the policy as if it contained section 627.4615. 2 *534 Accordingly, under section 627.452(1), the statutory obligation concerning a lump sum death payment contained in section 627.4615 need not be -written into insurance policies as it is not “required ,by” section 627.4615....

...Thus, if this section, along with sections 627.453 and 627.454 were not included in the policy, we would be required to read the policy in a way which brought it in conformity with these statutes. See Kaufman, 681 So.2d at 750 . However, the language of the statute at issue in the instant case, section 627.4615, does not mandate it to be included in the policy....

...g in Magnetic is inapposite. It is important to note that the Magnetic court did not find that section 627.736(4)(b)-(e), which mandates that interest shall be paid on overdue personal injury protection benefits, should be read into the policy. Like section 627.4615, section 627.736(4)(b)-(c) does not contain the *535 mandatory language requiring this provision to be included in the policy. Instead, section 627.736(4)(b)-(c) simply provides for the rate of interest to be paid on overdue benefits. Because section 627.4615, requiring the payment of interest on lump sum benefits, does not contain mandatory language commanding it to be included in the insurance policy, we find that this provision was not part of the policy, and that Stone’s claim was based on statutory liability....

...shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state unless it contains in substance each of the provisions as required by ss. 627.453-627.462 inclusive and ss. 627.475 and 627.476, or provisions which in the opinion of the office are more favorable to the policyholder. § 627.452(1), Fla. Stat. (1999)(emphasis added). . Section 627.4615, Florida Statutes (1999) provides, in relevant part: When a policy provides for payment of its proceeds in a lump sum upon the death of *534 the insured, the payment must include interest, at an annual rate equal to or greater than the Moody’s Corporate Bond Yield Average-Monthly Average Corporate as of the day the claim was received.... § 627.4615, Fla....

...3d DCA 2000) (it is the trier of fact who must determine which evidence is reliable and which should be discounted); Espino v. Anez, 665 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (appellate court may not reweigh evidence and credibility of witnesses). Best Meridian also argues that the trial court misapplied section 627.4615, Florida Statutes in calculating the amount of pre-judgment interest to be awarded to Tuaty....

...eived, from the date the insurer receives written due proof of death of the insured. If the method of calculating such index is substantially changed from the method of calculation in use on January 1, 1993, the rate must not be less than 8 percent. § 627.4615, Fla. Stat. (1995). In interpreting this statute, the trial court determined that section 627.4615 limits Best Meridian's liability for pre-judgment interest to 8% only for that period prior to the filing of this action....

...As to the interest, Great West paid the statutory rate on the proceeds from the date it received the claim documentation (in connection with another policy) from the personal representative of the estate of the ex-husband. 2 It contended that this payment, although made, was not legally required as section 627.4615, Florida Statutes (1993), states that interest is payable only from the date the insurer receives written due proof of the death of the insured, not from the date of death as Greene argues....

...Being bound by the terms, Greene was not entitled to the disputed payment. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Pinellas Cent. Bank & Trust Co., 175 So.2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA1965). 2. Great West is also correct in its argument that Greene is not entitled to additional interest beyond that which has been paid to her. Section 627.4615, Florida Statutes (1993), provides for interest only from the date the insurer receives written proof of death and surrender of the policy....