CopyCited 96 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 56 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 506, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16179, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 969
...Appellants violated Florida laws regulating insurance, specifically laws affecting
credit life insurance. The district court granted summary judgment to London on
several issues, finding that Appellants violated Florida Statutes sections
627.679(1)(c)(1) and
627.682 by procuring insurance contracts without making
the required disclosures and without first having the application forms approved
by the Florida Department of Insurance (“DOI”)....
...STAT. ANN. §
627.679(1)(c)(1) (2002).
In addition, London alleged that the Appellants violated Florida Statutes
section
627.410, which requires that all insurance application forms be filed with
and approved by the Florida DOI before use, and section
627.682, which applies
the same requirements to applications for credit life insurance. F LA. STAT. ANN.
§§
627.410,
627.682 (2002)....
...5
insurance commissioner, in violation of Florida law, rendered the endorsement
void.
213 So. 2d at 749-50. The district court found that under Illingworth, a
party’s violation of Florida Statutes sections
627.410 and
627.682 would make the
contracts at issue void and unenforceable....
...The district court also found that
Bankers was an “agent” for purposes of section
627.679(1)(c)(1), making the
statute’s disclosure requirements binding on Bankers.
The court found that Chase and Bankers violated sections
627.410 and
627.682 and by failing to file a copy of the “Take-One” in-store application forms
with the DOI prior to using the forms....
...remaining on the customers’ credit cards at their death. Thus, under Florida
common law, the contracts were illegal, and those who had paid premiums on the
illegal contracts were entitled to restitution of the premiums they had paid.
Bankers argued that section 627.682 did not apply to the in-store
enrollment form because it was not an “application” under the terms of the statute.
The district court rejected this argument on the grounds that not everyone who
checked the box for the credit lif...
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14719, 2006 WL 2520655
...3d DCA 1997), we stated that "parties to a rescinded agreement are required, insofar as possible, to restore the status quo." Although dealing with a different statute, the Second District stated in Trotter,
868 So.2d at 594-95, that, if a violation of section
627.682 renders the insurance contract void, the insureds would be entitled to restitution of the premiums paid on the insurance contract....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2573, 2004 WL 385004
...We disagree with the court's holding that no cause of action for common law restitution exists in Florida. But we agree that Trotter and Smith have failed to plead such a claim. Their cause of action for restitution is based solely on alleged violations of sections
520.07(2),
520.07(7),
520.12,
520.13, and
627.682, Florida Statutes (2000)....
...lation. See §
520.12(2). No such allegation was made concerning FMCC. Trotter and Smith cannot circumvent their inability to state a cause of action against FMCC under the Act merely by claiming any violation renders the contract void. Another law, section
627.682, requires that insurance companies file certain forms pertaining to credit life and credit disability insurance with the Florida Department of Insurance....
