Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Co. OVERTON, Justice. We have for review State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. LaForet, 632 So.2d 608, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance: WHETHER AMENDED SECTION 627.727(10), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP. 1992), IS A REMEDIAL STATUTE AND HAS RETROACTIVE APPLICATION. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution. Because section 627.727(10) is not an "amended" statute but is a newly created subsection that alters section 624.155, a previously enacted statute, we reword the question as follows: WHETHER NEWLY CREATED SECTION 627.727(10), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP....

...This question concerns the validity of retroactively applying a penalty to insurance companies for bad faith conduct in failing to settle uninsured motorist claims. It involves a review of three separate legislative acts: (1) a 1982 statute (section 624.155); (2) a 1990 amendment to the 1982 statute; and (3) a 1992 statute (section 627.727(10)), which alters the damages recoverable under the 1982 statute. Section 627.727(10) provides that the damages recoverable from an uninsured motorist insurance carrier in a bad faith action brought under section 624.155 and the 1990 amendment thereto shall include the total amount of a claimant's damages, *57 including any amount in excess of the claimant's policy limits awarded by a judge or jury in the underlying claim. The chapter law under which section 627.727(10) was enacted provides that it is to apply retroactively to 1982. Ch. 92-318, § 80, Laws of Fla. For the reasons expressed, we find that section 627.727(10) must be applied prospectively rather than retroactively....

...Eventually, however, the case proceeded to trial. At the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Laforets in the amount of $24,000. Punitive damages, which are permitted under section 624.155(4), were not awarded. On that same date (July 7, 1992), section 627.727(10) became law....

...ive date of section 624.155. Ch. 92-318, § 80, Laws of Fla. Thus, under the retroactive application of the new statute, State Farm was liable for the entire excess judgment awarded to the Laforets in their original case against State Farm. Based on section 627.727(10), the Laforets filed a motion for additur, asking the trial judge to award them the entire amount of the excess judgment as a matter of law....

...Second, the district court rejected State Farm's contention that the trial judge did not apply the appropriate standard for determining bad faith. Finally, the district court held that the trial judge properly granted the motion for additur, finding that section 627.727(10) is to have retroactive application. In so holding, the district court certified the question regarding whether section 627.727(10) was, in fact, to be applied retroactively to 1982. In this appeal, State Farm raises four issues, contending that: (1) section 627.727(10) cannot be retroactively applied; (2) the trial court incorrectly denied State Farm's motion for directed verdict because the basis on which State Farm denied coverage was "fairly debatable"; (3) the trial judge improperly instruct...

...r"; and would be "inconsistent with the legislature's action in setting forth the specific requirements for an award of punitive damages under subsection 624.155(4)." Id. at 625 (emphasis added). After our decision in McLeod, the Legislature enacted section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...n of a law of this state. The total amount of the claimant's damages are recoverable whether caused by an insurer or by a third-party tortfeasor. (Emphasis added.) The implementing language of that section provides: The purpose of subsection (10) of section 627.727, Florida Statutes, relating to damages, is to reaffirm existing legislative intent, and as such is remedial rather than substantive. This section and section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes shall take effect upon this act becoming a law and, as it serves only to reaffirm the original legislative intent, section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes, shall apply to all causes of action accruing after the effective date of section 624.155, Florida Statutes....

...ns are to include the total amount of a claimant's damages, including any amount in excess of the claimant's policy limits without regard to whether the damages were caused by the insurance company. The Legislature has also directed that section *61 627.727(10) is remedial and is to apply to all causes of action accruing after the effective date of section 624.155. Because section 624.155 was originally enacted in 1982, the implementing language indicates that section 627.727(10) is to be applied retroactively to 1982....

...vested rights, creates new obligations, or imposes new penalties. Alamo; State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1983); Seaboard Sys. R.R. v. Clemente, 467 So.2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). When we apply these standards to the instant case, we find that section 627.727(10) cannot be applied retroactively because it is, in substance, a penalty. Without question, the Legislature has expressly stated that section 627.727(10) is remedial and is to be applied retroactively....

...In fact, in McLeod, we signified a contrary conclusion by finding that the imposition of the amount of the excess judgment as damages would be "analogous to imposing a penalty or punitive damages on the insurer." 591 So.2d at 625. For example, although the Legislature has characterized section 627.727(10) as simply a remedial clarification of legislative intent, the damages incurred by State Farm under section 627.727(10) would be over $200,000 higher in this case than if the section did not apply to this action. Further, in addition to imposing a significant penalty on all insurers found guilty of bad faith, section 627.727(10) is an entirely new provision; it would apply to all actions brought under section 624.155 since its effective date in 1982 if it were to be applied retroactively; and it significantly alters the language used to determine damages. By implementing section 627.727(10), the Legislature is in essence subjecting insurance companies in first-party bad faith actions to two penalties because, not only are they subject to punitive damages for the willful or reckless refusal to pay a claim, they are also subject to a penalty for the wrongful failure to pay a claim....

...a penalty consisting of the entire amount of the excess judgment without regard to proximate causation; and (3) the additional penalty of punitive damages when the bad faith is found to be willful or reckless. To say that, under these circumstances, section 627.727(10) is simply a remedial clarification that does not retroactively impose a new penalty is not a justifiable interpretation. The Laforets argue that the greater damages imposed under section 627.727(10) are simply an increased sanction rather than a penalty....

...Kolb, 543 So.2d 732 (Fla. 1989) (subsequent legislatures, in the guise of "clarification" cannot nullify retroactively what a prior legislature clearly intended). Additionally, although the pre-1990 version of section 624.155 applies to this case, section 627.727(10) is equally inapplicable to the 1990 amended version of section 624.155 given that such an application would still constitute a retroactive penalty. Consequently, section 627.727(10) can apply only to actions accruing after the date of its enactment in 1992. In summary, we conclude that section 627.727(10) applies prospectively only....

...1994); Clough v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 636 So.2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 645 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1994). Because of our decision here, we disapprove those cases to the extent they can be read as approving the retroactive application of section 627.727(10)....

...Consequently, "the amount involved and the results obtained" have changed since the initial award of attorney's fees. Under these circumstances, we find that the award of attorney's fees must be reconsidered by the trial judge. In conclusion, we find that section 627.727(10) can apply prospectively only....

...I concur with the majority's decision that the "fairly debatable" standard should not be applied to bad-faith actions brought pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes (1985). I also concur that the 1990 amendment to section 624.155 and the 1992 amendment to that same section through the adoption of section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...es recoverable in this statutory cause of action, which accrued prior to October 1, 1990, included damages in excess of policy limits. I therefore concur in the result reached by the majority. I dissent, however, as to the majority's conclusion that section 627.727(10) is only prospective in nature. I conclude that section 627.727(10) applies retroactively back to the date of the 1990 amendment to section 624.155 and, consequently, that section 627.727(10) applies to all insurance policies issued after October 1, 1990....

...Gidman, 440 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1983); see also City of Tampa v. Thatcher Glass Corp., 445 So.2d 578, 579 (Fla. 1984) (citing Deltona Corp. v. Florida Public Service Comm'n, 220 So.2d 905, 907 (Fla. 1969)). The timing and stated legislative intent of section 627.727(10) indicate that the legislature in enacting this statute was reacting to this Court's interpretation of section 624.155 following its amendment in 1990....

...The Court rejected the conclusion that first-party bad-faith damages should be fixed at the amount of the excess judgment. Id. In response, the legislature *65 expressly provided that first-party damages are to encompass the "total amount of the claimant's damages, including the amount in excess of the policy limits." § 627.727(10), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1992). While the legislature in enacting section 627.727(10) further provided in a legislative note that this section "shall apply to all causes of action accruing after the effective date of section 624.155, Florida Statutes," [3] I conclude that it was referring to the effective date of section 624.155 as amended in 1990....

...The legislature's intent should be given effect regardless of whether such construction varies from the statute's literal meaning. State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820, 824 (Fla. 1981); Garner v. Ward, 251 So.2d 252, 256 (Fla. 1971). The legislative note accompanying section 627.727(10) implies that the statute's effective date is 1982, but I believe the only interpretation of the note compatible with the legislative history of section 624.155 and the McLeod decision is one recognizing the effective date of section 624.155 as October 1, 1990, the effective date of the 1990 amendment. This interpretation gives reasonable effect to the legislative intent expressed in both the note accompanying the 1990 amendment and the note accompanying the enactment of section 627.727(10), whereas the majority's opinion interpreting section 627.727(10) as prospective totally disregards and nullifies the legislative intent expressed in these provisions....

...This principle, in conjunction with my analysis above, leads to the conclusion that all policies issued after the effective date of the 1990 amendment to section 624.155 should conform with that statute as well as its proper legislative construction as evidenced by section 627.727(10). SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Amicus Florida Defense Lawyers Association claims that section 627.727(10) not only is unconstitutional when retroactively applied but also is unconstitutional as a whole....

...We hereby transmit this opinion to the Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings. It is so ordered. SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(6), Florida Constitution. [2] The suit was brought pursuant to section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985), which provides in pertinent part: If the underinsured motorist insurer does not agree within 30 days to arbitrate the underinsured motorist claim and approve the proposed settlement agreement, waive its subro...

...s fees. Appellants bring this appeal from the final order of the trial court ruling section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1979), constitutional. The first issue concerns the effectiveness of Jack Eloranta's rejection of uninsured motorist coverage under section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...a named insured on his father's policy. Appellee Progressive contends that Jack Eloranta was the proper person to reject the uninsured motorist coverage. Progressive argues that his rejection was binding on any additional insureds under the policy. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), reads in part: No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respe...

...According to the district court, "[a]lthough appellee's decedent was rated on the policy as the sole operator of the insured vehicle, this did not make her a `named insured' for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage under the terms of the policy or under section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977)." Id....

...ge there had been a determination as to the extent of Vest's damages and that Vest had not settled her claim with the tortfeasor. At some time during this litigation, Travelers approved a settlement between Vest and the tortfeasor in accordance with section 627.727(6)(a), Florida Statutes....

...appellant, finding that the statute did have retroactive effect, that the statute was constitutional, and consequently, that the insured may not stack the coverages applicable to the two insured motor vehicles. Finally, the appellant contended that Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975), required uninsured motorist coverage to be "excess over" any liability coverage that a third party has....

...contract freely, (2) the statute violates Article I, Section 10, Florida Constitution, because it impairs the obligation of an insurance contract entered into prior to the effective date of the statute, and (3) the trial court erred in holding that Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975), requires the insured to set off the amount recoverable from the third-party tort-feasor's insurance carrier against the total amount of uninsured motorist coverage available to him....

...Today we reaffirm this general rule and find that appellant was placed on notice of the effectiveness of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976), only as of October 1, 1976. Appellant's other point on appeal requires this Court to construe the meaning of certain language found in Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Anderson, 332 So.2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Govt. Employees Ins. Co. v. Butt, 296 So.2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Sellers v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co., 214 So.2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). We note that none of these cases expressly construe the meaning of "excess over" as used in § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (1975). However, a set off for the tort-feasor's coverage was assumed. [5] § 627.727(3), Fla....

...re damages and to award reasonable costs and attorney's fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1991). [3] See Pizzarelli, 704 So.2d at 633. ANALYSIS The question presented by this case is whether the Legislature, by using the term "payable" in section 627.727(3), intended to limit the setoff from damages only to expenses that had been incurred and were due and owing at the time of the judgment or whether the Legislature intended the setoff to be coextensive with the remaining amount of PIP benefits....

...The Fifth District concluded in Kokotis that "`payable' as used in this statute includes expenses which have not yet accrued but which will result from the covered injury." 679 So.2d at 297. In contrast, the Fourth District concluded that the term "payable" in section 627.727(3) means only those medical expenses that have been incurred prior to trial but not yet paid or processed by the PIP carrier....

...on. We first note that this Court has generally held that statutes with provisions that impose additional penalties for noncompliance or limitations on the right to recover attorneys' fees do not apply retroactively. In Laforet, this Court held that section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes, which imposed a penalty on insurers who in bad faith failed to settle uninsured motorist claims, could not be applied retroactively "because it [was], in substance, a penalty." Laforet, 658 So.2d at 61....

...ract. In our view, the statute, when viewed as a whole, is a substantive statute. Pursuant *880 to the 2001 version of section 627.736, an insured must now take additional steps beyond filing an application for PIP benefits and beyond complying with section 627.727(4)....

...This includes the preparation and provision of a written notice of intent to litigate, which requires the inclusion of additional information that the insured may not have access to and which may not be sent until the claim is considered overdue under section 627.727(4)(b)....

...This Court will generally not "apply a statute retroactively if the statute impairs vested rights, creates new obligations, or imposes new penalties." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So.2d 55, 61 (Fla.1995) (finding that even though the Legislature expressly stated that section 627.727(10), Fla....

...this state ... unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles.... § 627.727(1), Fla....

...ry to the uninsured motorist statute and void as against the public policy of the statute. The uninsured motorist statute never specifically provides a definition of an "uninsured" motor vehicle. However, the uninsured motorist statute sets forth in section 627.727(3) the circumstances under which a vehicle will be considered "uninsured" even when the vehicle is actually insured....

...For example, an "uninsured motor vehicle" shall be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof: . . . . (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the total damages sustained by the person legally entitled to recover damages.... § 627.727(3) (emphasis supplied). This is commonly referred to as an "underinsured" motor vehicle. See also § 627.727(6)(a)-(c) (specifically referring to an "underinsured motorist insurer")....

...ed an underinsured motorist as defined in the uninsured motorist statute. Pursuant to the statutory provisions, a motorist is underinsured when the "liability insurer" provides limits of bodily injury liability less than the total damages sustained. § 627.727(3)(b). In addition, sections 627.727(6)(a) and (b) also refer only to motorists with liability insurers as "underinsured" motorists. [2] *84 Thus, under sections 627.727(3) and (6), in order to be considered underinsured, the tortfeasor must have a liability insurer. The term "liability insurer" is undefined in the part of the Insurance Code related to uninsured motorists coverage. See generally § 627.727....

...Avila, 606 So.2d 364 (Fla.1992), a company that leased automobiles provided its lessees compliance with the Financial Responsibility Law through a program of self-insurance. [3] This Court was asked to consider whether the self-insured company was an "insurer" that was required by section 627.727 to offer uninsured motorist coverage to its lessees....

...bligation to provide uninsured motorist coverage. 606 So.2d at 366. We concluded in Avila that providing compliance [with financial responsibility laws] through self-insurance is not the same as issuing a "motor vehicle liability policy"; therefore, section 627.727 is not applicable....

...orist coverage). Accordingly, we agree with Progressive that because a self-insurer is not a liability insurer under the Florida Insurance Code, a self-insured motorist cannot be considered an underinsured motorist based on the statutory language of section 627.727(3) that limits the definition of underinsured motorists to those having liability insurers....

...Where possible, courts must give effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another. Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1992) (citations omitted). Because the Legislature defined an underinsured motorist in section 627.727(3) and left the term "uninsured" otherwise undefined in section 627.727(1), we must read these provisions together in order to arrive at a consistent *85 and harmonious interpretation of the uninsured motorist statute....

...Section 672.727(3) sets forth the circumstances where an insured motor vehicle will be considered "uninsured," such as when the vehicle is underinsured because the "liability insurer" provided limits of liability lower than the damages sustained. See § 627.727(3)(b). Reading section 627.727(3) in pari materia with section 627.727(1) leads to a logical and harmonious statutory interpretation of the term "uninsured" as a motorist without a "liability insurer," who is not considered statutorily "underinsured" pursuant to 627.727(3). Thus, a motorist who is self-insured must be deemed statutorily uninsured. This statutory construction, which would prohibit a self-insurer exclusion as contrary to the uninsured motorist statute, is also consistent with section 627.727(9). That section provides a list of statutorily permissible policy exclusions to uninsured motorist coverage. Significantly, an exclusion for self-insured motorists is not among this list. See § 627.727(9)....

...e exclusion of another." Moonlit Waters Apartments Inc. v. Cauley, 666 So.2d 898, 900 (Fla. 1996). By failing to permit self-insured motorist policy exclusions in the list of authorized exclusions, the Legislature has further indicated its intent in section 627.727 not to permit self-insured motorist policy exclusions....

...324.031(4), Florida Statutes (1999), [6] and is thereby a self-insured motor vehicle, is, for the purposes of the Financial Responsibility Law, precisely what it is stated to be—an insured motor vehicle, not an uninsured motor vehicle. Pursuant to section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1999), a self- insured motor vehicle that meets the requirements of section 324.031(4), is just as much an "insured" motor vehicle as one covered by a motor vehicle liability policy pursuant to section 324.031(1)....

..."Self-insured" is different from "uninsured." Uninsured is when the tort-feasor's liability insurer has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the total damages sustained. 667 So.2d at 803. Moreover, I do not follow the complex knitting together of sections 627.727(1) and 627.727(3), Florida Statutes, which undergirds the majority's opinion to reach the rather startling conclusion that "a motorist who is self-insured must be deemed statutorily uninsured." Majority op....

...In Bourke, the school board had in effect a liability insurance policy, and its policy limits of $325,000 were exhausted. The issue did not involve a self-insured governmental agency. Rather, the issue was the statutory construction of the words "legally entitled to recover" in section 627.727(1) as related to the limits for judicial recovery against a state agency under section 768.28....

...Avila, 606 So.2d 364 (Fla.1992), do not support the incongruous result that, while a self-insured motor vehicle qualified under section 324.031(4), Florida Statutes, is not an underinsured motor vehicle, the vehicle is an uninsured motor vehicle. I read Lipof and Avila to be statutory constructions of section 627.727 which limit the application of that statute to "policies of liability insurance." These cases give to the statute its plain meaning, as does the analysis of the majority in this case as to underinsured motorist coverage. This is merely giving effect to the requirement of section 627.727 as those requirements pertain to "policies of insurance." However, those cases in no way make the illogical leap that only motor vehicles covered by "policies of liability insurance" are insured vehicles....

...ured" a nullity in "self-insured." It merely means that the vehicle is "insured" other than by a policy regulated by the insurance code applicable to commercial insurance policies. As noted in footnote 2 of the majority decision, an integral part of section 627.727 is the procedure set forth in subdivision (6) for an underinsured motorist insurer to retain subrogation rights against the tortfeasor....

...Accordingly, I dissent from the majority's opinion and would approve the district court's decision below. NOTES [1] We note that although the 1995 version of the Florida Statutes are applicable in this case, none of the pertinent sections of the statutes at issue have changed in the 1999 version of the Florida Statutes. [2] Section 627.727(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), sets forth the procedures that must be followed when an injured person agrees to settle the claim with the underinsured motorist's liability insurer for an amount that does not "fully satisfy the claim,...

...an "underinsured motorist claim." If these procedures are followed, the injured party is authorized to execute a release in favor of the "underinsured motorist's liability insurer" and still pursue any "underinsured motorist claim." Id. In addition, section 627.727(6)(b) discusses procedures for the "underinsured motorist insurer" to follow if it chooses to refuse permission to settle in order to preserve its subrogation rights against "the underinsured motorist and the liability insurer." We ha...

...Vaka of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Amicus Curiae. KOGAN, Justice. We have for review State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Hassen, 650 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), wherein the Second District Court of Appeal held section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), unconstitutional and certified the following question to be of great public importance: IS SECTION 627.727(6), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1992), CONSTITUTIONAL? IF SO, IS IT A SUBSTANTIVE STATUTE, AS OPPOSED TO A REMEDIAL STATUTE, SUCH THAT ITS TERMS CANNOT BE APPLIED CONSTITUTIONALLY TO A PENDING CLAIM BROUGHT UNDER THE UNINSURED MOTORIST PRO...

...OF AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED PRIOR TO ITS EFFECTIVE DATE? 650 So.2d at 141-42. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), (4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we decline to answer the certified question. Rather, we hold that section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), should not be applied, as it was here, to a claim brought under the underinsured motorist provisions of an automobile insurance policy issued prior to that statute's effective date....

...rights under the policy. The trial court entered a partial final summary judgment in favor of the Hassens. The court determined that the Hassens were entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under the State Farm policy. The trial court ruled that section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), which became effective October 1, 1992, [1] was a "remedial/procedural statute and applie[d], therefore, to claims for uninsured motorist benefits and policies of insurance issued before its effective...

...The district court then certified the above question for our consideration. Although we decline to answer the certified question as phrased by the district court, we approve the result reached below. Our resolution of this case is based on our determination that the 1992 amendment to section 627.727(6) substantially changes the law governing an underinsured motorist carrier's right to subrogation and therefore must be applied prospectively in light of the complete absence of a legislative statement to the contrary....

...here, an *109 underinsured motorist carrier has thirty days from receipt of written notice of a proposed settlement with an underinsured motorist's liability insurer to consider authorization of the settlement or retention of its subrogation rights. § 627.727(6)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1992). If the UM carrier chooses to preserve its subrogation rights by refusing permission to settle, it has thirty days after receipt of the notice to pay its insured the amount of the settlement offer. Id. § 627.727(6)(b)....

...If the carrier authorizes settlement or fails to respond to the settlement request within the thirty-day period, its insured is free to settle the claim and release from liability the underinsured motorist and the motorist's liability insurer without prejudice to any claim against the UM carrier. Id. § 627.727(6)(a). We turn now to the version of the statute that was in effect at the time the Hassens' policy was issued. Under the 1989 version of section 627.727(6), State Farm had thirty days from receipt of notice of a settlement offer to approve the settlement, waive its subrogation rights, authorize a full release, and agree to arbitrate the underinsured motorist claim. If it did not act within the thirty-day period, the only consequence State Farm faced was a lawsuit against it and the underinsured motorist "to resolve their respective liabilities for any damages to be awarded" the Hassens. § 627.727(6), Fla....

...In fact, a review of chapter 92-318, Laws of Florida, supports the conclusion that the legislature intended the amendment to subsection (6) to be applied prospectively only. As noted by the district court, the legislature clearly expressed its intent regarding the effective date of the act amending section 627.727 by providing "[e]xcept as otherwise provided herein, this act shall take effect October 1, 1992." Ch....

...Moreover, the conclusion *110 that the amendment at issue here was intended to be a substantive rather than a remedial change in the law is further supported by the title to chapter 92-318, which reads in pertinent part "[a]n act relating to insurance; ... amending s. 627.727, F.S.;......

...t the time of the accident. Under these circumstances, we must presume that the parties to this contract bargained for, or at least expected, Florida law to apply. Id. (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we held that the requirement of section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), that automobile insurance policies "delivered or issued for delivery in this state" contain uninsured motorist coverage, unless expressly waived by the insured, applied to the 1990 policy....

...n an accident. See id. At trial, the federal district court assumed that Florida law applied and entered summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. See id. The federal court of appeals agreed but certified a question to this Court regarding section 627.727(2) of the Florida Statutes (Supp....

...This Court restated the question to be answered by mixing the concepts of both an existing policy executed in a foreign state with subsequent policy alterations issued and delivered in Florida as follows: Whether an excess carrier has a duty to make available the uninsured motorists (UM) coverage required by section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), to an insured under an existing policy on vehicles which had never been registered or principally garaged in Florida when any vehicle, covered or subsequently added, first becomes registered or princi...

...FLORIDA? Id. at 1113. On review, however, the parties acknowledge that the district court's use of the insurance term "stacking" was inaccurate. [2] Indiana and Florida define underinsurance differently. Compare Ind.Code § 27-7-5-4 (West 2003) with § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). Further, Florida does not allow underinsurance coverage to be reduced by setoff against other coverage, while Indiana law does. Compare Ind.Code § 27-7-5-5 (2004) with § 627.727(1), Fla....

...liability insurance for the protection of such insureds thereunder as `if the uninsured motorist had carried the minimum limits' of an automobile liability policy." A reading of Section 627.0851, F.S. as it appears in Florida Statutes 1969 and F.S. Section 627.727, F.S.A., as the latter appears in Florida Statutes 1971, the uninsured motorist statute, does not disclose any statutory basis for a "stacking" exclusion in a policy combining auto liability coverage for two or more automobiles of the named insured with uninsured motorist coverage included....

...statute. The Mullis case, as well as Salas v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Fla. 1972, 272 So.2d 1, follows the Sellers rationale. The weight of authority over the nation follows this rationale. We note nothing in Section 627.0851 or its successor, Section 627.727, which authorizes an insurer providing uninsured motorist coverage to limit coverage as here attempted. The statute covers the entire subject and sets forth what may be excluded. For example, Section 627.727, F.S....

...ninsured motorist insurance carrier. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. We quash the district court's decision. We agree with the district court that a vehicle may be an "uninsured motor vehicle" under section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...1978), [1] even when it is covered by a liability insurance policy, if that policy does not provide coverage for the particular occurrence that caused plaintiff's damages. However, we also hold that the phrase "legally entitled to recover" in the context of section 627.727(1) does not encompass claims where the uninsured tortfeasor is immune from liability because *554 of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440; Florida Statutes....

...provided coverage if Boynton had had a cause of action against Xerox. We reject this argument. The fact that an owner or operator of a motor vehicle has a liability insurance policy does not always mean that the vehicle is insured in the context of section 627.727(1)....

...Xerox's policy afforded no coverage because Xerox was without fault as a matter of law. Luke's liability policy afforded no coverage because of the policy exclusion. [5] Second Issue Although the vehicle was technically uninsured as to respondents, section 627.727(1) and the policy endorsement still require the policyholder be "legally entitled to recover" from the owner or operator of the uninsured vehicle....

...e goal of protecting against financially irresponsible motorists. Widiss also observes that in most states where UM coverage has been made mandatory subsequent to its development, the legislation has merely required a UM endorsement. While Florida's section 627.727 does go into some detail regarding UM coverage, the first sentence of the statute, containing the language at issue here, merely defines UM coverage in terms sufficient to identify it as such....

...The policyholder pays an additional premium for such coverage. The uninsured motorist statute provides that coverage is "for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury." § 627.727(1)....

...entitled to recover from the tortfeasor. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is quashed and remanded for further proceedings in accord herewith. It is so ordered. BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(1) provides in pertinent part: (1) No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any...

...Here the family car, which is defined in the policy as the insured motor vehicle, is the same vehicle which appellant, under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy, claims to be an uninsured motor vehicle. We find no merit in appellant's argument that this exclusion conflicts with Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...therefore not affected by our decision today. [2] We note that previous actions of this Court limiting the relief afforded under section 624.155 based upon distinctions between first- and third-party claims have been rebuked by the Legislature. See § 627.727(10), Fla....

...d by the agent that he would be fully covered. Pierce also claimed that AALL negligently failed to inform him of his uninsured motorist (UM) coverage options and that AALL negligently failed to obtain the written waiver of UM coverage as required by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...To do so would substantially expand the legislative intent of providing UM coverage to those "who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom." § 627.727(1), Fla....

...Separate and apart from the purpose of requiring insurers to provide PIP benefits for their insureds who are injured in automobile accidents, insurers issuing motor vehicle policies in Florida also are mandated by statute to offer UM coverage unless the insured has expressly rejected the coverage. See generally § 627.727, Fla....

...For example, a "motor vehicle liability policy" has been defined as an owner's or operator's liability policy insurance "against loss from liability for bodily injury, death and property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle ..." Section 324.021(8), Florida Statutes (1979). [3] In Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1979), the Legislature has directed that uninsured vehicle coverage be provided in auto insurance policies delivered in this state....

...d third person it is the court's belief that the provisions of the insurance policy must be construed most favorably from the insured's viewpoint." To that we would emphasize two other compelling reasons for our conclusions herein. The first is that § 627.727(1), F.S....

...an uninsured motorist. Petitioner brought an action for declaratory judgment seeking a determination of the amount of uninsured motorist coverage available to him under his employer's automobile insurance policy. Petitioner invoked the provisions of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975), which requires insurers to provide uninsured motorist coverage to policy holders in an amount equal to their bodily injury liability coverage, unless the uninsured motorist coverage is rejected by the named insured....

...R & X Installation Company of Florida, Inc., was added as a named insured and the uninsured motorist coverage was noted on the policy as being $10,000 per person and $20,000 per incident. Petitioner moved for summary judgment on the ground that the insurer had not complied with the requirement of section 627.727(1) that the insurer offer uninsured motorist coverage in the same amount as the bodily injury liability coverage provided. Respondent moved for summary judgment on the ground that the policy showed that the insured had selected lower limits of uninsured motorist coverage. The trial judge denied both motions and let the case go to a jury for trial. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975), provides in relevant part: (1) No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this...

...t less than bodily injury liability coverage to be in writing. He also contends that the jury's findings of an offer and a specific rejection were against the manifest weight of the evidence. In support of his first point, petitioner points out that section 627.727(1) requires that uninsured motorist coverage be provided in the same amount as bodily injury liability coverage unless lower limits of uninsured motorist coverage are selected by the insured....

...ly and liberally construed. As sources of authority for construing the statute petitioner relies on Florida Administrative Code, Rule 4-28.02 and Department of Insurance Bulletin No. 586. These administrative regulations were promulgated pursuant to section 627.727(1) and require that the selection of lower uninsured motorist coverage be in writing and that evidence of the writing be maintained in the insurer's files....

...ther's household and the policy contained a provision that only provided damages for bodily injuries sustained by the insured or a covered person. However, the court held that the insurance provisions in question were contrary to the requirements of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984), and reversed the trial court's ruling. Section 627.727(1) provides in pertinent part: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or principally garaged...

...to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor *410 vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom. All automobile insurance policies must offer uninsured motorist protection as broad as section 627.727(1) requires. Salas v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 272 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1972). Therefore, the question before us is whether the coverage claimed in this case was required by section 627.727(1)....

...The relevant portion of the uninsured motorist (UM) statute flatly states that all auto liability insurance must provide coverage for "the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles." § 627.727(1), Fla....

...so useful for so many years. I would dismiss the petition for review, ruling that no conflict with Mullis exists. I would let stand Judge Sharp's eminently sensible majority opinion below. BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur. KOGAN, Justice, dissenting. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or p...

...Nevertheless, Christopher's father Clyde, under his legitimate claim [4] for damages under Florida's wrongful death act, has suffered damages due to Christopher's death that were caused by the negligence of an uninsured motorist. Therefore, according to the provisions of section 627.727(1), Clyde is legally entitled to recover such damages from his uninsured motorist coverage....

...Co., 172 So.2d 485, 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). The exclusion at issue in Webster imposes a limitation on the applicability of uninsured motorist coverage similar to limitations disallowed in other cases. Moreover, as the Webster court noted, the language contained in section 627.727(1) does not limit recovery from uninsured motorist insurance for wrongful death only to damages arising form the death of an insured or covered person....

...the first time, that the UM provisions are inapplicable because the comprehensive general liability policy at issue did not mention any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle. In support of its contention, INA argued the 1984 amendment to section 627.727, Florida Statutes, served to clarify the 1981 statute and made clear the legislative intent that the 1981 statute should apply only to classic automobile insurance policies. To demonstrate that under the 1981 version of section 627.727 UM coverage was available, the Ellsworths attempted to introduce the legislative Staff Summary and Analysis prepared during the 1984 legislative session, in connection with House Bill 319....

...In a similar vein, we find the trial court did not err in excluding from evidence the 1984 legislative Staff Summary and Analysis. This analysis, which purports to explain the effect of the 1984 amendments, is not determinative of legislative intent with respect to the 1981 version of section 627.727....

...1986), where the supreme court explained: The uninsured motorist statute provides that coverage is "for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury." s. 627.727(1)....

...are not included within the "you" and "your" definition of named insured. Since our interpretation of the policy language affords automobile liability coverage to the Ellsworths for their business use of Mrs. Ellsworth's privately owned automobile, we turn now to the provisions of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...ability coverage for the Ellsworths for the business use of their privately owned automobile. Since the Ellsworths are legally entitled to recover from the driver of the motor vehicle which caused their injuries, the insurer is required, pursuant to section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1981), to provide UM benefits....

...d the terms embodied in it, the courts should and will construe them liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer to protect the buying public who rely upon the companies and agencies in such transactions. 181 So.2d at 528. [2] Section 627.727, Fla....

...compelling the Defendants to proceed with the arbitration process in accordance with the terms of the insurance contracts ..." The controlling question presented is whether an injured plaintiff who has available $30,000.00 in uninsured motorist coverage, pursuant to Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975), [1] may, by petition, without bringing an action against the tortfeasor, who has available $10,000.00 liability coverage, compel arbitration under his own uninsured motorist coverage....

...ured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof: * * * * * * "(b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist's coverage." Section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...uninsured motorist coverage without there first being a determination of whether the tortfeasor's coverage is adequate to cover plaintiff's damages. Appellee relies on the provision of the statute that uninsured motorist coverage is excess coverage. Section 627.727(1) provides: * * * * * * "The coverage provided under this section shall be excess over but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured under any workmen's compensation law, disability benefits law, or any similar law; un...

...The principle has validity and a special public interest in view of the present state of automobile negligence litigation. Finally, the statute as written by the legislature makes no reference to the necessity for a lawsuit prior to arbitration. The test is set out in the statute (Section 627.727(2), supra)....

...erages should have been stacked in this case. 501 So.2d at 33. In support of their argument, petitioners first state that there was no informed rejection of uninsured motorist coverage limits equal to the limits of the liability coverage. Relying on section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1981), petitioners contend the result of the lack of informed rejection is that uninsured motorist coverage was automatically extended on all vehicles on which liability coverage is purchased....

...mber of owned motor vehicles. Petitioners appear to have confused the lack of informed rejection, which affects only the amount of uninsured motorist coverage, with the separate issue of when and on what basis uninsured motorist coverage is stacked. Section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes, provides that "[t]he limits of uninsured motorist coverage shall be not less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the named insured, or such lower limit complying with the company's r...

...han the liability coverage, the trial court entered a partial summary judgment correctly finding that Mrs. Coleman was entitled to uninsured motorist limits equal *689 to the liability limit of $25,000.00. Contrary to petitioners' argument, however, section 627.727 does not provide that the lack of an informed rejection of uninsured motorist coverage equal to the limits of liability coverage results in the number of uninsured motorist coverages being equal to the number of cars covered by liability insurance....

...to each of the fifteen vehicles owned on the date of the accident and that the district court therefore erred in determining that they paid for only two uninsured motorist coverages. The Coleman's position appears to be based on an interpretation of Section 627.727 which requires that separate uninsured motorist coverage be provided for each vehicle....

...invalid. Tucker v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 288 So.2d 238 (Fla. 1973). [2] The petitioners' reliance on Posey v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 332 So.2d 909 (La. Ct. App. 1976), is therefore unwarranted. In contrast to our interpretation of section 627.727(1), Louisiana courts interpreted 22:1406D as requiring that each policy of liability insurance issued provide uninsured motorist coverage with respect to each vehicle covered by the liability insurance.

...Time Insurance relies upon footnote 10 of McLeod for the proposition that we have already answered the certified question adversely to Burger's position. In response, Burger contends that McLeod is no longer controlling authority because its holding was overturned by the legislature through the enactment of section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...violation of the statute "shall include those damages which are a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section," places no limitation on the recovery of damages for emotional distress. We do not agree that the enactment of section 627.727(10) diminished the effect of footnote 10 of the McLeod opinion....

...injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom; provided, however, that the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable when, or to the extent that, any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage... .., § 627.727(1), Florida Statutes. The record and briefs present this court with the following questions: 1. Is the excess indemnity policy issued by the appellant to Mr. Charles Scruggs one of "automobile liability insurance" as referred to in § 627.727(1), Florida Statutes? 2. If the answer to 1. above is in the affirmative did Mr. Scruggs reject uninsured motorist coverage under the excess indemnity policy in a manner which would satisfy the requirements of § 627.727(1), Florida Statutes? Our answer to the first question is in the affirmative....

...erlying insurance on policy numbered 76XS 800707 WCA. The policies were different in form but the excess indemnity policy "covered liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of" a motor vehicle, and we consider these words as used in § 627.727(1), Florida Statutes to be in apposition to the phrase "automobile liability insurance" rather than in amplification, since any policy of automobile liability insurance would provide at least that coverage....

...similarly situated vehicle was not an uninsured motor vehicle under the statute. Originally, UM coverage came into play only when the offending owner or operator carried no liability insurance whatsoever. § 627.0851, Fla. Stat. (1961). However, subsection 627.727(3)(b), which defines "uninsured motor vehicle" as applied to insured vehicles, was implemented in 1973 (as subsection 627.727(2)(b)) and has remained *394 essentially unchanged....

...en the liability insurer thereof: ... . (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under uninsured motorist's coverage applicable to the injured person. § 627.727(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985). Subsection 627.727(1), which defines UM coverage, was amended in 1979 to provide: The coverage provided under this section shall be over and above, but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured under, any workers' compensation law, person...

...r vehicle or any other person or organization jointly or severally liable together with such owner or operator for the accident. Only the underinsured motorist's automobile liability insurance shall be set off against underinsured motorist coverage. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...The amount of such excess coverage shall not be reduced by a setoff against any coverage, including liability insurance. An insurer shall not provide both uninsured motor vehicle coverage and excess underinsured motor vehicle coverage in the same policy. § 627.727(2)(b), Fla....

...such benefits and the damages sustained, up to the maximum amount of such coverage provided under this section. The amount of coverage available under this section shall not be reduced by a setoff against any coverage, including liability insurance. § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1984). Shelby Mutual contends that the 1984 version of the statute is clear on its face and that no inquiry into legislative intent is necessary to determine the purpose of subsection 627.727(3)(b) under the 1984 amendment. It asserts that the subsection provides a threshold definition of uninsured motor vehicle that must be met before the provisions in subsection 627.727(1) can be given effect....

...This view has been approved by the district courts of appeal in Marquez v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 534 So.2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and Woolard. Smith, on the *395 other hand, contends that the legislative history surrounding the 1984 amendment shows that the definition contained in subsection 627.727(3)(b) was not meant to be a threshold requirement. Under her scenario, UM coverage is stacked upon the tortfeasor's liability coverage regardless of the amount of the UM limits. In resolving the issue in favor of Smith, the court below stated: Prior to the 1984 amendments, section 627.727(1) allowed for the setoff of a tortfeasor's liability coverage against the injured party's underinsured motorist coverage; and section 627.727(2) required insurers to make available excess underinsured motorist coverage against which liability coverage could not be set off....

...The Florida Legislature's 1984 amendments barred the setoff of liability coverage and eliminated the provision for excess underinsured motorist coverage. The amendment was made applicable to new and renewal policies with an effective date of October 1, 1984, or later. The Florida Legislature, however, did not amend section 627.727(3) — the language of which has been set forth above. The failure to amend subsection (3) has created confusion about the Legislature's intentions as to the extent and scope of this coverage... . ... . We conclude that the Legislature intended the 1984 amendment to section 627.727, Florida Statutes, to provide that all uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage be excess coverage and that it pay over and above the tortfeasor's liability coverage should said liability coverage be inadequate to fully compensate the injured insured....

...2d DCA 1961). It is neither the function nor prerogative of the courts to speculate on constructions more or less reasonable, when the language itself conveys an unequivocal meaning. At all times pertinent to our consideration, the introductory sentence to subsection 627.727(1) has read as follows: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any *396 specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in...

...It is so ordered. EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion, in which KOGAN, J., concurs. BARKETT, J., did not participate in this case. SHAW, Justice, dissenting. In my opinion, the following language in subsection 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1985), is ambiguous when read in conjunction with subsection 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1985): [S]uch [UM] coverage shall cover the difference, if any, between the sum of such [liability insurance] benefits and the damages sustained, up to the maximum amount of such coverage provided under this section....

...orida Bar's Continuing Legal Education publication on Florida automobile insurance law. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 527 So.2d 830, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). It has been the subject of commentary by educators within the industry: *397 In amending F.S. 627.727(1) and (2) without revising 627.727(3), the legislature created an ambiguity with respect to excess uninsured motorist coverage....

...d accepted by the majority, and the senate analysis flatly states that UM coverage is stacked upon the tortfeasor's liability coverage "regardless of the amount of liability coverage carried by the [tortfeasor]." Accordingly, I would rule that under section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985), UM coverage is stacked upon the tortfeasor's liability coverage no matter what the UM limits, provided that damages exceed the liability limits....

...The main benefit of the 1982 amendment which was carried forward into 1984 was the elimination of the offset of the tortfeasor's liability coverage. [2] We note that the extent of UM coverage has been addressed once again in chapter 88-370, Laws of Florida. [*] I recognize that this view would be inapplicable to section 627.727, as amended by chapter 88-370, section 15, Laws of Florida, which became effective October 1, 1989.

...er, then the adoption of one remedy waives the right to the other." Id. Here, the remedies of the defendant's liability coverage and the plaintiff's UM coverage are not inconsistent. UM coverage does not necessarily duplicate liability coverage. See § 627.727(1), Fla....

...The trial court ruled these allegations were insufficient to allege that appellant suffered bodily injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of his motor vehicle within the meaning of section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1979), relating to the personal injury protection benefits and of section 627.727(1), Florida Statute (1979), relating to uninsured motorist provisions of his automobile insurance policy and dismissed the complaint....

...f $15,000/$30,000. Unbeknownst to Johnson, Harless signed Ms. Yates' name to the application in the two places indicated for the signature of the insured. The application contained a provision just above one of the signatures which stated that under Section 627.727 of the Florida Statutes the company was required to offer uninsured motorist coverage limits equal to the bodily injury limits unless specifically lower limits were requested....

...Yates. The court further found that all of the acts of Harless were the acts of the Auto-Owners and that Ms. Yates had not rejected the uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equivalent to her liability limits to which she was otherwise entitled under Section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...within the course and scope of his employment when he was involved in the automobile accident injuring Dunn. [9] Turning now to Iowa's cross-appeal, we affirm the trial court's final judgment against Iowa for $90,000.00. In its brief, Iowa relies on Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1981), for its contention that once Dunn proved that he had a claim against Saudi Arabian Airlines, he was no longer entitled to make an underinsured motorist claim against Iowa. Underinsured motorist coverage under Section 627.727(1) is excess over but shall not duplicate "benefits available to an insured ......

...of the underinsured motorist. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v. Diem, 358 So.2d 39, 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). In this case, the only "benefits available" was the $10,000.00 from Allstate's automobile liability insurance policy. In that regard Section 627.727(1) provides that only the underinsured motorist automobile liability insurance shall be set off against underinsured motorist coverage....

...The sole issue is whether a policy issued by Hartford to Ms. Sheffield which contained lower liability limits than a preceding one, as to which UM coverage had been specifically rejected, was a "renewal" of the initial policy so that a second rejection was not required under Section *599 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1976)....

...On December 1, 1975, Hartford issued Ms. Sheffield an automobile liability insurance policy for a one year term with the then-required $15,000/$30,000 minimum limits. At that time, she executed a specific written rejection of UM coverage as provided by Section 627.727(1), and no UM protection was in fact provided or paid for....

...On July 25, 1977, she was involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. After Hartford denied her UM coverage, she filed an action against the company which culminated in the summary judgment in her favor now under review. The controlling statute, Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977) provides No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to a...

...these rules of construction to the situation involved in this case, it is clear that the second, or, as indicated by the company forms themselves, the "changed" or "amended" policy may not properly be deemed a "renewal policy" within the meaning of Section 627.727(1)....

...separate and severable" contract which required the company to offer UM coverage upon its issuance. Cf. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Glover, 202 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Because, for these reasons, the "renewal policy" exception to Section 627.727(1) did not apply, Hartford was obliged under the statute to offer UM coverage to the plaintiff at the time it issued the amended policy....

...HENDRY, J., dissents. NOTES [1] See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Duffy, 237 So.2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). [2] Hartford argues that the expansive definition of "renewal" contained in Sec. 627.728(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1977) should be applied in the interpretation of Sec. 627.727(1)....

...which restrict insurance companies in cancelling or failing to renew existing policies, would call for a broad or liberal interpretation of the term. 30 Fla.Jur. Statutes § 127 (1974). In contrast, the word "renewal" as contained in the proviso to § 627.727(1), must, as we have seen, supra, be given quite the opposite construction....

...Continental Casualty Co., 82 A.D.2d 861, 440 N.Y.S.2d 40 (1981), aff'd, 56 N.Y.2d 264, 451 N.Y.S.2d 703, 436 N.E.2d 1305 (1982). [3] Three states, Florida, Ohio, and Louisiana, have construed their statutes to include umbrella policies. However, these states have a different type of statute. Section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1985), *920 requires a liability insurer to provide uninsured motorist coverage in "not less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance." The policy underlying the statute is to allow full recovery unde...

...[4] While Florida's view of the situation may be instructive here, the statute specifically states that it applies only to those policies "delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state." § 627.727(1), Fla....

...The insurers denied the claim, and the estate filed an action claiming entitlement to UM benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers, concluding that the "your car" exception precluded the estate from recovering UM benefits. The district court of appeal reversed, concluding that section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), [1] overrode the insurance policy's "your car" exception, thereby allowing the estate to recover both liability and UM benefits under the same policy. Warren, 650 So.2d at 1083-84. Coincidentally, less than seven months later, the Second District Court of Appeal concluded that section 627.727(3)(b) does not require insurers to issue policies that would enable class II insureds, i.e., passengers (other than a named insured or resident relatives of a named insured), who are injured in a single-car accident to recover both liability and UM benefits under the same policy....

...ility and the UM provisions of the policy. However, all automobile insurance policies must offer UM protection as broad as the UM statute requires. Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster, 567 So.2d 408, 410 (Fla.1990). Therefore, the issue before us is whether section 627.727(3)(b) negates the effect of the policy's "your car" exception. Section 627.727(3)(b) was an amendment to the UM statute enacted as chapter 89-243, Laws of Florida....

...on Ins., CS for HB 331 (1989) Staff Analysis (June 30, 1989). Under the heading "EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES," the staff analysis states: "The bill reverses the amendments made by section 15 of chapter 88-370, thereby restoring excess uninsured motorist coverage. It also amends s. 627.727(3)(b), to clear up Legislative intent that UM coverage is excess." Id....

...mant's UM coverage. See id. The staff analysis does not suggest that chapter 89-243 was intended to enable class II insureds who are injured in a single-car accident to recover both liability and UM benefits under the same policy. Thus, we hold that section 627.727(3)(b), enacted as chapter 89-243, reinstated the principle that liability payments shall only be set off against damages rather than the UM coverage, but it does not stack UM coverage on top of liability coverage under one policy for the benefit of class II insureds. [3] Section 627.727(3)(b) states that a vehicle constitutes an uninsured motor vehicle when the liability insurer of the vehicle has provided liability coverage for its insured which is less than the total damages sustained by the claimant. Having determined that section 627.727(3)(b) does not require a stacking of both liability and UM benefits under the same policy, we therefore conclude that the "liability insurer" referred to in section 627.727(3)(b) means an insurer other than the insurer providing UM coverage to the claimant. The legislature's response to this Court's decision in Brixius v. Allstate Insurance Co., 589 So.2d 236 (Fla.1991), reinforces our interpretation of section 627.727(3)(b)....

...State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172, 1172 (Fla. 1977), in which we had held that a vehicle cannot be both an uninsured and insured vehicle under the same policy. Brixius, 589 So.2d at 237-38. Responding to our decision in Brixius, the legislature amended the UM statute in 1992 to add section 627.727(3)(c) so as to avoid the inequity of denying benefits to a class I insured who had paid for the liability coverage to protect permissive users and had also paid for UM coverage. Bulone, 660 So.2d at 404 n. 7; see also Fla. S. Comm. on Com., SB 170H (1992) Staff Analysis (June 2, 1992). Section 627.727(3)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), provides that where a nonfamily permissive user is driving an insured vehicle and causes injury to a class I insured passenger, the insured vehicle will be considered uninsured for purposes of UM coverage. [4] Significantly, section 627.727(3)(c) did not stack UM coverage on top of liability coverage under a single policy. If the legislature meant section 627.727(3)(b) to mean what the court below now says it means, then there would have been no reason whatsoever to enact section 627.727(3)(c)....

...red. Ray v. Earl, 277 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 280 So.2d 685 (Fla.1973). When USAA pays an underinsured motorist claim involving a solvent tortfeasor, it typically receives subrogation rights from its insured against the tortfeasor. See § 627.727(6), Fla....

...from liability coverage. Thus, the result is a policy that provides twice the disclosed limit of liability coverage for the claims of passengers. See Millers Casualty Ins. Co. v. Briggs, 100 Wash.2d 1, 665 P.2d 891 (1983). .... The interpretation of section 627.727 in Warren creates statutory requirements never disclosed to the insurance carriers or to the families who have purchased the coverage....

...Likewise, before the legislature requires Florida's families to pay the premiums necessary to double protection for class II insureds, this issue should be debated by the legislature. 660 So.2d at 404-05. Furthermore, under the Warren court's interpretation of section 627.727(3)(b), class II insureds will be in a better position than class I insureds even though the premiums are paid by class I insureds....

...OVERTON and HARDING, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., concurs with an opinion, in which SHAW, J., concurs. ANSTEAD, J., dissents with an opinion, in which KOGAN, C.J., concurs. WELLS, Justice, concurring. I concur in the result reached by the majority that under section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), a class II insured [6] cannot recover both liability and uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under the same insurance policy; however, I do not agree with the initial reasons upon which the majority reaches this result. In its opinion, the majority determines the legislative intent not from the plain, unambiguous language of section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes, but from the legislative history surrounding this statute. If decided solely on statutory construction, I would find that the plain language of section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes, allows a class II insured to effect a recovery of both liability and UM coverage. Section 627.727(3), Florida Statutes, states: (3) For the purpose of this coverage, the term "uninsured motor vehicle" shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof: .......

...Moreover, I cannot agree with the majority's reading of the statute's legislative history or its finding of legislative intent. However, I am compelled to my decision because of the recognition that the right to subrogation is integral to UM coverage under section 627.727, Florida Statutes....

...ng coverage for the pending claim. There is nothing patently unreasonable about such a statute and, given its clarity, we are obligated to follow its mandate without invoking our own view as to the policy it reflects. KOGAN, C.J., concurs. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(3)(b) states: (3) For the purpose of this coverage, the term "uninsured motor vehicle" shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof: .......

...Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229, 238 (Fla.1971); Quirk v. Anthony, 563 So.2d 710, 713 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), approved, 583 So.2d 1026 (Fla.1991). [3] The Second District Court of Appeal has previously concluded that neither the 1983 nor the 1984 version of section 627.727 required insurers to stack UM coverage on top of liability coverage under one policy for the benefit of class II insureds....

...McClure, 501 So.2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.), opinion corrected, 512 So.2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). [4] In passing, we note that a claimant who is in the same position as the claimant in Reid still could not recover UM benefits. Section 627.727(3)(c) only applies where a nonfamily permissive user is driving....

...y insofar as it barred a class II insured from recovering both liability and UM benefits under the same policy. [6] Class II insureds are lawful occupants of an insured vehicle who are not named insureds or resident relatives of a named insured. [7] Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1989), delineates the procedure to be followed for a UM insurer to preserve its subrogation rights....

...100,000. Respondent's answer denied that the policy which it issued to Mr. Vereeke provided uninsured motorist coverage in such amount, and claimed that as to petitioner, the Kast vehicle was not an uninsured motor vehicle as that term is defined in section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...For the following reasons we quash the decision of the district court. Florida law requires that all automobile liability insurance policies delivered or issued for delivery in this state include coverage for any bodily injury loss of the insured caused by the negligence of an uninsured motorist. See § 627.727, Fla....

..."an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof ... [h]as provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist's coverage." See § 627.727(2)(b), Fla....

...Thus, argues *496 petitioner, the limit of her uninsured motorist coverage is $100,000 (the amount available under Mr. Vereeke's policy), said amount exceeds the limits of Mr. Kast's liability policy (making Kast an uninsured motorist as defined in section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975)), and petitioner is entitled to the uninsured motorist coverage of Mr....

...icy, thereby causing his uninsured motorist coverage to exceed the liability coverage of the third party, and entitling him to recover uninsured motorist benefits of up to $60,000 from his and Jones' insurance companies. The district court held that section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), does not permit such stacking....

...available to the injured party." Cox at 332. Thus, according to those cases, petitioner would be entitled to stack her and Mr. Vereeke's uninsured motorist coverages in determining whether Mr. Kast is an "uninsured motorist" under the provisions of section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...nderinsured motorist situation, where protection is required from losses caused by those with inadequate insurance. There is no reason to allow stacking in one situation while prohibiting it in the other. Second, we note the change in the wording of section 627.727(2)(b) since this cause of action arose....

...sured motorist protection follows the car rather than the person." Thus Mr. Vereeke's uninsured motorist coverage is applicable to petitioner, and may be included by petitioner in determining whether Mr. Kast is an "uninsured motorist" as defined by section 627.727(2)(b). In short, petitioner is entitled to stack the coverages. Respondent argues that the 1977 amendment to the language of section 627.727(2)(b) post-dated the accident in question, had an effective date after the accident, and was not intended to operate retroactively to clarify the intent of the prior wording....

..., the legislature would have so indicated and would not have made the amendment prospective in its operation. We disagree. An act's legislative history is an invaluable tool in construing the provisions thereof. We believe that the 1977 amendment to section 627.727(2)(b) was intended to clarify the legislature's intention, and that the amendment should be considered in construing said law....

...283, 288 (1930): [I]t is proper to consider, not only acts passed at the same session of the Legislature, but also acts passed at prior or subsequent sessions, and even those which have been repealed. Thus we will consider the 1977 amendment when construing section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), and do find that it indicates an intent on the part of the legislature that one in petitioner's position be allowed to stack the uninsured motorist coverage of policies of which she is a beneficiary when determining whether another party is an uninsured motorist. For the foregoing reasons, we disapprove the rulings of the district and trial courts herein which held that the words "his uninsured motorist's coverage" as used in section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), refer to the coverage of the policy issued the injured person and do not include the uninsured motorist coverage of another person's policy of which the injured person is a beneficiary....

...The record on appeal contains little information concerning the renewal of Travelers' policy on December 21, 1984. It is clear that the policy was renewed and, thus, was in effect at the time of the accident. It is unclear what, if any, information Travelers provided to West Coast with its annual premium notice. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...d precedent. This case is a classic example of these problems. In the 1970s, the UM statute required an insurance carrier to issue a motor vehicle policy containing UM coverage unless "any insured named in the policy *714 shall reject the coverage." § 627.727(1), Fla....

...l promoted by the state, but a valid rejection of the coverage could be obtained by a carrier without a great risk of litigation concerning the rejection. In 1982, the statute was amended to require that the insured reject the coverage "in writing." § 627.727(1), Fla....

...The form of the rejection required approval from the Insurance Commissioner. The amended statute states: "If this form is signed by a named insured it shall be a conclusive presumption that there was an informed, knowing rejection of coverage... ." § 627.727, Fla....

...Dignam, as an insurance broker. The "knowing rejection" issue is immaterial. Since the policy was issued after October 1, 1984, and it is not a primary insurance policy, Southern American was not obligated to provide UM coverage under the provisions of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984). It merely needed to make such coverage available as a part of the application and "at the written request of the insured." § 627.727(2), Fla....

...der its insurance contract with Mitchell. The trial court, in the judgment appealed, posed the sole question for determination as follows: "is a vehicle `uninsured' under the terms and conditions of the subject insurance contract and Florida Statute § 627.727, where there is applicable liability insurance available at the time of the accident, in the minimum amounts as required by the Florida Financial Responsibility Law, but the limits are subsequently exhausted thereunder by payment to multip...

...For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court did not err in the conclusions expressed in the final judgment rendered in this cause, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed. RAWLS, C.J., and DREW, Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] F.S. § 627.727, F.S.A....

...OR THROUGH BEING STRUCK BY A LAND MOTOR VEHICLE OWNED BY THE NAMED INSURED OR ANY RESIDENT OF THE SAME HOUSEHOLD, IF SUCH VEHICLE IS NOT AN OWNED MOTOR VEHICLE. These exclusions are legally impermissible under the Florida uninsured motorist statute, Section 627.727, Florida Statutes....

...The Uninsured Motorist Statute indicates that an insured vehicle can be considered uninsured when the liability insurer of that vehicle [h]as provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist's coverage. [§ 627.727(2)(b), Fla....

...1983), considered the question of whether the addition of a vehicle to an existing policy of insurance constituted the issuance of a "new policy" which incorporated statutory provisions enacted after the issuance of the original policy. In that case, the applicable version of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1979), required insurance companies to offer uninsured motorist coverage equal to the limits of liability when any policy (contract of insurance) was issued, other than a renewal policy....

...5th DCA 1983), rev. den., 441 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1983), held that the substitution of a wife's name for that of her deceased husband's as named insured on an existing policy of insurance was not such a material change as to constitute the issuance of a "new policy." Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1981), now provides that uninsured motorist coverage need not be offered and rejected in connection with a renewal policy "or any other policy which extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy"....

...e to allow an amendment to section 627.4132 to impair the rights of the insurance company with respect to Nancy Gray. [2] Thus, the mere addition of another person on a policy, like the addition of a vehicle, is not a reissuance of the whole policy. Section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1981), provides: The limits of uninsured motorist coverage shall be not less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the named insured, or such lower limit complying with the company's r...

...Nancy Gray's policy with Metropolitan provides limits of uninsured motorist coverage lower than the limits of bodily injury coverage in that the uninsured motorist coverage is limited to $50,000 per person or $100,000 per occurrence while the bodily injury coverage is $100,000 with no per person limitation. § 627.727(2) permits an insurer to issue a policy with limits of uninsured motorist coverage lower than the limits of liability coverage provided the insured knowingly selects the lower limits....

...5th DCA 1982), or Maxwell v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 399 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), are controlling. Both cases involve the issue of whether a separate or a material change to a policy occurred so as to trigger the waiver requirements of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977) and (1979)....

...The endorsement adds a vehicle, but the policy itself establishes the primary terms of coverage. Further, I think there is no question but that Metropolitan's limitation of its uninsured motorist coverage to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) per person violates section 627.727(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...overage on any one of the vehicles with applicable coverage. Coverage on any other vehicles shall not be added to or stacked upon that coverage. This section shall not apply: (1) To uninsured motorist coverage. § 627.4132(1), Fla. Stat. (1981). [2] Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1981), provides in part: Unless the named insured, or lessee having the privilege of rejecting uninsured motorist coverage, requests such coverage in writing, the coverage need not be provided in or supplemental...

...rer, when the named insured had rejected the coverage in connection with a policy previously issued to him by the same insurer. Each insurer shall at least annually notify the named insured of his options as to coverage required by this section. [3] Section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...inancial irresponsibility of other motorists. Ironically, the accident victims would have been better off if the tortfeasor had violated the financial responsibility law by not carrying insurance. The petitioners' policy with Hartford is governed by section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1971)....

...Butt, 296 So.2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The respondent counters by arguing that it was chapter 73-180, Laws of Florida, that first required underinsured vehicle coverage. Except for minor punctuation changes, the "excess over" provision of subsection (1) of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1971) (quoted above) was not altered by that amendment. But subsection (2) was substantially changed to read as follows: 627.727 Automobile liability insurance; uninsured vehicle coverage; insolvent insurer protection....

...n the limits specified therein because of insolvency; or (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist's coverage. codified as § 627.727(2), Fla....

...Our perusal of the case law in this area uncovered two more recent cases in which courts held that underinsured vehicle coverage was not required until chapter 73-180. York Insurance Co. v. Becker, 364 So.2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Coney v. Reserve Insurance Co., 358 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1971), governed the policy at issue here and is the prime authority for determining whether uninsured vehicle coverage is available in this case....

...Freeman, 324 So.2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Albury v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 295 So.2d 297 (Fla. 1974); De Coningh v. City of Daytona Beach, 103 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); Johnson v. State, 157 Fla. 685, 27 So.2d 276 (1946). Uninsured vehicle coverage is specified by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971) (quoted above), as available to the extent it is excess over but not duplicative of other recoveries, including "recovery from any automobile liability or automobile medical expenses coverages." Not only is the word "any" all-encompassing, but the term "automobile liability ......

...r, chapter 71-88 made such coverage also function as underinsured vehicle coverage. The respondent is mistaken in believing that the clear mandate in chapter 73-180 for underinsured vehicle coverage establishes that such coverage was not required by section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1971)....

...Reserve Insurance Co ., Castaneda v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co ., American Fire and Casualty Co. v. Dawson and Summers v. Jackson, supra , are inconsistent with this opinion, they are hereby disapproved. The petitioners' uninsured motorist coverage was required by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971), to operate as underinsured motorist coverage....

...Petersburg and operated by an uninsured city employee. At the time of the accident appellant's vehicle was insured by an automobile liability insurance policy issued by appellee which provided uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to § 627.0851 F.S. 1967 [now § 627.727 F.S.] The policy provided that the term "uninsured highway vehicle" shall not include: "(2) a highway vehicle owned or operated by a self-insurer within the meaning of any motor vehicle financial *831 responsibility law, motor carrier law...

...Bourke, 581 So.2d at 1366. The district court affirmed and certified the aforementioned question to this Court. Before reaching the certified question, we address Michigan Miller's assertion that the school board's motor vehicle is not an uninsured motor vehicle under section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...en the liability insurer thereof: ... . (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under uninsured motorist's coverage applicable to the injured person. § 627.727, Fla. Stat. (1987). Michigan Millers contends that the plain language of section 627.727 requires the comparison between applicable liability coverage and applicable uninsured motorist coverage be conducted on a "per person" basis....

...As noted by the district court, such a finding would defeat the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage — that purpose being the compensation of an injured plaintiff for a deficiency in the tortfeasor's insurance. Accordingly, we hold that the school board's vehicle in this case is an "uninsured motor vehicle" under section 627.727(3)(b). We next address the issue of whether Michigan Millers can assert the school board's substantive defense of sovereign immunity to avoid payment of the uninsured motorist coverage in this case. Section 627.727 limits an insured's recovery of uninsured motorist benefits to that which the insured is "legally entitled to recover" from the uninsured motorist....

...Thus, Michigan Millers contends that because section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1987), limits any recovery against the school board to $100,000 per person and $200,000 per accident, those same limits can be raised as a defense on its behalf as well. In Boynton, we stated that the plain meaning of section 627.727 would appear to require that the insured must have a claim against the tortfeasor that could be reduced to judgment in a court of law....

...be made directly against the tortfeasor. Id. at 557. Our decision in Boynton turned on the immunity afforded the tortfeasor under the worker's compensation statute. In Boynton, we held that the phrase "legally entitled to recover" in the context of section 627.727(1) does not encompass claims where the insured tortfeasor is immune from liability because there is a statutory bar to an action against the insured tortfeasor, but for which bar, recovery would lie....

...r. Consequently, the sovereign immunity defense is not available to Michigan Millers. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is approved. It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides, in part: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or pri...

...Douglas, 627 So.2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), in which the district court held that an automobile insurance policy issued by Government Employees Insurance *119 Company (GEICO) provided Douglas with uninsured motorist coverage because the insurer failed to comply with section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...Phillips, 640 So.2d 53 (Fla. 1994), based on our decision in World Wide Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Welker, 640 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1994), issued on the same date. We now recede from our decision quashing Nationwide because that decision failed to give effect to section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...We believe the legislature accepted as the prevailing Mullis theory the principle enunciated in Justice Shaw's footnote when it enacted the 1987 amendment to the uninsured motorist statute and, thereby, changed the state of the law. Pursuant to this amendment, which became section 627.727(9)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), insurers could issue motor vehicle liability insurance policies which contained limited uninsured motorist coverage....

...The limitation was described as follows: The uninsured motorist coverage provided by the policy does not apply to the named insured or family members residing in his household who are injured while occupying any vehicle owned by such insureds for which uninsured motorist coverage was not purchased. § 627.727(9)(d), Fla....

...As recognized by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, to limit coverage validly, the insurer must satisfy the statutorily-mandated requirement of notice to the insured and obtain a knowing acceptance of the limited coverage. An insurer who provides coverage with the section 627.727(9)(d) limitation is also statutorily required to file revised, decreased premium rates for such policies....

...o insurers for the right to limit uninsured motorist coverage by this exclusion. As further recognized by the Fourth District in its opinion in this case, if the policy exclusion is valid despite noncompliance with the *121 statute, the provision of section 627.727(9)(d) is rendered meaningless. Section 627.727(9)(d) was applicable in this instance and the insurer, GEICO, was found not to have complied with the statute....

...did not own the motorcycle he was operating and had not expressly rejected all types of insurance coverage on the vehicle he owned and was operating at the time of the accident. The majority recognizes that there are two separate interpretations of section 627.727(9). Under the theory of the majority, there are two types of exclusions authorized by section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...27 was to recognize that a motor vehicle owner could protect himself with insurance coverage without protecting others. Nothing in the legislative history suggests such an intent. I reject the majority theory. To me, the single underlying purpose of section 627.727(9) was to deal with the stacking of uninsured motorist coverage and, specifically, to authorize insurance companies to provide non-stacked policies (or "anti-stacked" policies in the legislative vernacular) of uninsured motorist coverage....

...t least 20% on the cost of insurance premiums. The sole purpose of this subsection was to provide non-stacking alternatives for policies that already provided liability insurance coverage for a motor vehicle. In my view, all that subparagraph (d) of section 627.727(9) does is recognize that uninsured motorist coverage is reciprocal or mutual equivalent of automobile liability coverage and that an insured such as Douglas who is injured while occupying a vehicle owned by him for which uninsured motorist coverage is not purchased is not entitled to coverage whether it is stacked or non-stacked. When subsection 627.727(9) [1] is read in its entirety, it is absolutely clear that this subsection was written solely to allow non-stacked uninsured motorist coverage....

...to uninsured motorist coverage. This statute was amended in 1980 to exempt the uninsured motorist statutes from the non-stacking provision. This had the effect of prohibiting non-stacking provisions for uninsured motorist protection. Then, in 1987, section 627.727(9) was enacted to allow insurance companies to offer their customers policies that contained a non-stacking uninsured motorist coverage provision provided that (1) the insurance customers expressly asked for this non-stacking provision and (2) the insurance customer would in return receive a premium reduction for uninsured motorist coverage of at least 20%. The statutory provisions in subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of subsection 627.727(9) set out the various coverage alternatives applicable to an insured who chooses the non-stacked option....

...remium charged for the optional non-stacked uninsured motorist coverage. To say that subparagraph (d) has a purpose other than to explain the coverage for a vehicle the owner chose not to insure is plain wrong. It is contrary to a logical reading of 627.727(9) in its entirety and contrary to the legislative purpose of this statute as set forth in the house and senate legislative analyses cited earlier. It is important to emphasize that subparagraph (d) was only one of five identified subparagraphs in section 627.727(9)....

...ched in between (c) and (e), applies to a totally different exclusion for vehicle owners who chose not to carry insurance on their vehicles. A reading of the staff analyses prepared by both the senate and the house fully supports the conclusion that 627.727(9) is a statute authorizing only the option of non-stacked uninsured motorist coverage and nothing more....

...Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 460, 86 So. 629, 636 (1920). Regrettably, the policy of financial responsibility established by the legislature and this Court for owners of motor vehicles is substantially modified by the majority's illogical construction of section 627.727(9)....

...2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992)). The message sent by the majority opinion will, in my view, adversely affect the stability of the law in this state. In conclusion, I find that the majority incorrectly and erroneously interprets the intent and purpose of subsection 627.727(9), and I suggest that the legislature immediately address this issue by explaining in clear statutory terms that a vehicle owner has never been authorized by statutory law to protect himself with uninsured motorist coverage without first obtaining liability coverage to protect others....

...A vehicle owner with UM, when a passenger in the vehicle of another motorist with UM, is entitled to *126 coverage under both policies. Such is in accordance with each policy's terms; not "stacking" as ordered by the courts. B. Effect of Proposed Changes: Section 627.727, F.S., is amended to allow insurers to offer policies of uninsured motorist coverage containing specific policy provisions that uninsured and underinsured coverage will not be added together to determine the limit of coverage for any one accident....

...In addition, the bill provides that in connection with the offer to sell non-stacked uninsured motorist coverage, that the insurer shall inform the named insured, applicant or lessee, on a form approved by the department, of the limitations imposed under s. 627.727, F.S., as amended....

...to s. 627.0651, F.S. (Making and use of rates for motor vehicle insurance). Staff of Fla.S.Comm. on Com., CS/SB 829 (1987) Staff Analysis 1-2 (May 25, 1987) (on file at the Florida State Archives). GRIMES, C.J., and HARDING, J., concur. NOTES [1] Subsection 627.727(9) reads as follows: (9) Insurers may offer policies of uninsured motorist coverage containing policy provisions, in language approved by the department, establishing that if the insured accepts this offer: (a) The coverage provided a...

...Elie, 647 So.2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). A plaintiff can receive compensatory or actual damages for the loss or injury caused by the action of the defendant. See McLeod v. Continental Ins. Co., 591 So.2d 621 (Fla.1992), superseded on other grounds by § 627.727(10), Fla....

...pensate Stokeley for her injuries, which according to lawyer Graff's testimony were sufficiently severe to justify compensation of more than $35,000. GEICO's entitlement to reimbursement of the uninsured vehicle benefits paid Stokeley is governed by § 627.727(1), F.S....

...protection benefits are payable under § 627.736 in amounts determinable irrespective of fault in order to compensate the recipient for losses formerly assessable only against the party at fault; on the other hand, disability benefits payable under § 627.727 are not insurance against all loss due to personal injury by an automobile but are insurance for only so much of the loss as is incompensable because of the financial irresponsibility of the party at fault....

...The uninsured vehicle benefits paid by GEICO to Stokeley, therefore, duplicate to the extent of $10,000 the compensation "available to [Stokeley] ... from the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle" and from the United States, which was vicariously liable [§ 627.727(1), F.S....

...Hotte, 312 So.2d 235 (Fla.App. 1st, 1975), affirmed a judgment which partially reimbursed an insurer the uninsured vehicle benefits paid to an insured who subsequently settled his claim against the uninsured tortfeasors. In the absence of an applicable statute such as § 627.727(1), F.S....

...on the ground that, considering the severity of the injuries but not other factors which typically weigh in the evaluation of claims, the claim against the tortfeasor was more valuable than all sums received. To so hold in spite of the provisions of § 627.727(1), which govern this case but not Hotte , would transform uninsured vehicle coverage into a kind of supplemental insurance for all loss by bodily injury....

...Furthermore, although the trial court initially stayed the arbitration proceeding, after entry of the summary judgment the trial court vacated the stay order. On appeal appellant contends a) that the court erred in holding that appellant did not *443 fully comply with Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971) in issuing the policy in question, b) that it was error to grant summary judgment for appellees on the issue of the amount of uninsured motorist coverage, and c) that it was error for the trial court to vacate the stay of the arbitration proceeding....

...1966). The next point on appeal involves the real issue in this case and should be treated now for the future guidance of the trial court during the proceedings following remand. The question involved as stated by appellee is: "[W]hether Fla. Stat. § 627.727(1) (1971) mandates that an insured is entitled to uninsured motorist (UM) coverage in the same limits as his bodily injury liability coverage unless he affirmatively rejects those limits in whole or in part." Inferentially, the trial court...

...injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom; provided, however, that the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable when, or to the extent that, any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage; ..." Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (effective Jan. 1, 1972) (Emphasis added.) In 1973 the Legislature passed Chapter 73-180, Laws of Florida, which further amended Section 627.727(1), by, among other things, requiring that no liability insurance policy should be issued unless uninsured motorist coverage was provided therein in an amount not less than the limits of liability insurance purchased by the insured....

...it issued a policy, for example, with no uninsured motorist *444 coverage, unless it had apprised the insured of the options available and the insured had rejected said coverage? Likewise, if an insurance carrier issued a policy in March 1973 (while 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971) was in effect) with bodily injury limits of $100,000/$300,000 and uninsured motorist coverage with limits of $10,000/$20,000, or any other limits less than the bodily injury limits, it could not have complied with...

...ly injury limits of liability applicable to the policy. The applicant or insured may accept limits for uninsured motorist coverage in an amount less than the bodily injury limits of the policy. Specific Authority 624.308, 120.031 FS. Law Implemented 627.727 FS. History-New 12-19-71." Appellant contends that Rule 4-18.02 violates Section 624.308(1), Florida Statutes (1971), in that it modifies or extends Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971). We disagree. We recognize that our interpretation of Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971) conflicts with the holding of the Third District Court of Appeal in Garcia v....

...Allstate Insurance Company, 327 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976). However, we decline to follow that decision. Further, we would point out that in a later decision of that Court, Allstate Insurance Company v. Baer, 334 So.2d 135, 136 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976), it states in a footnote that Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971), requires a company issuing a liability insurance policy after January 1, 1972, to include uninsured motorist coverage in limits no less than the liability limits, unless rejected by the insured. Accordingly, we find the apparent interpretation of Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971), by the trial judge to be correct....

...AL TO THE POLICY'S BODILY INJURY LIABILITY LIMITS, WHAT IS THE EFFECT, IF ANY, OF A SUBSEQUENT NOTIFICATION SENT BY THE INSURER TO THE INSURED WITH A PREMIUM NOTICE ADVISING THE INSURED OF HIS OPTIONS AS TO UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 627.727(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1982)? Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co....

...Marchesano, 482 So.2d 422, 427-28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (emphasis in original, footnote omitted). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. We rule that where an insurance company complies with the annual notice provision of section 627.727(1) an insured's failure to act upon that notice at the time of renewal constitutes an affirmative waiver of uninsured motorist coverage limits higher than those specified *412 in the purchased policy....

...Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court. On or about April 20, 1982 Alfred Marchesano purchased a Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Nationwide) automobile liability insurance policy from the Starkey Insurance Agency. Section 627.727(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1982), requires insurance companies to make available to each purchaser of an automobile liability insurance policy uninsured motor vehicle coverage in an amount no less than $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident....

...In response, the Marchesanos filed a complaint for declaratory relief, alleging that they did not knowingly reject uninsured motorist coverage equal to their $100,000/$300,000 liability policy limits. They later amended their complaint, alleging that Nationwide had failed to comply with the section 627.727(1) requirement of annually notifying insureds of their uninsured motorist coverage options....

...nal purchase, such a rejection occurred later as a result of the subsequent notification. As a preliminary matter, the Marchesanos argue that the district court erred in considering the effect of the subsequent periodic notification made pursuant to section 627.727(1) because the issue was not raised at trial. We cannot agree. Count II of the Marchesanos' first amended complaint quoted section 627.727 and alleged that Nationwide had failed to comply therewith....

...ject the statutorily mandated uninsured motorist coverage at the time of the initial purchase, such a rejection subsequently occurred when the Marchesanos failed to act upon the form notification that Nationwide had enclosed with the premium notice. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1982), provides in pertinent part: Each insurer shall at least annually notify the named insured of his options as to coverage required by this section....

...rovided a means for the Marchesanos to request such coverage and on a form approved by the Department of Insurance. Thus, as the trial court stated in its final judgment, the jury found that Nationwide had fully complied with all the requirements of section 627.727(1)....

...Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 1977); Midstate Hauling Co. v. Fowler, 176 So.2d 87 (Fla. 1965); Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So.2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The district court's extensive analysis concerning the legislature's apparent purpose in enacting the section 627.727(1) requirements set out above is also correct. Indeed, both legislative intent and logic support the conclusion that Nationwide's issuance of the section 627.727(1) notification, coupled with the Marchesanos' failure to act upon that notice, binds the Marchesanos to the uninsured motorist coverage set forth in the policy....

...Once Nationwide fulfilled its statutory duty it could not reasonably be expected to do more. The Marchesanos must now take responsibility for their own failure to read and respond to the enclosed notices. Accordingly, we rule that where the insurance company complies with the annual notice provision of section 627.727(1) the insured's failure to act upon that notice at the time of renewal constitutes an affirmative waiver of uninsured motorist coverage limits higher than those specified in the purchased policy....

...The jury found that respondent did not offer petitioners uninsured motorist coverage limits equal to the bodily injury liability limits and the trial court entered a judgment on this finding. I would quash the decision of the District Court of Appeal and reinstate the judgment entered on the verdict. NOTES [*] § 627.727(2)(a), Fla....

...uninsured [or underinsured] motorist[s]." 252 So.2d at 238. Therefore, any provision in an insurance policy attempting to limit a named insured's right to UM benefits only as to automobiles listed in his policy must be condemned as contrary to the public policy as expressed in Section 627.727(1)....

...On the other hand, Spencer denied that he had ever rejected UM coverage in any such lesser sum, and in fact had assumed before the accident that his UM limits equaled his BI limits. The focal question before us is what type of evidence is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the insurer has met Section 627.727(1)'s requirement of offering UM coverage in an amount no "less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the named insured,..."? When a statute commands that its provisions can only be met by following a specif...

...We concluded that once "it was shown without contradiction that the clerk failed to give notice as required by the statute, it follows that there was no issue of fact for determination by a jury." 113 So.2d at 404. Similarly, in the case at bar, no disputed issue of material fact remained undetermined. Section 627.727(1) has uniformally been interpreted as requiring nothing less than an affirmative, informed rejection by an insured of his right to UM protection....

...s under a duty to do so, but, in the absence of such a duty, silence or inaction will not operate to work an estoppel. Pasco County v. Tampa Development Corp., 364 So.2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Thomas v. Dickinson, 158 Fla. 819, 30 So.2d 382 (1947). Section 627.727(1), as construed by the Wilson-Weingarten line of cases, places no duty upon the insured to initiate a request for UM coverage in an amount equal to that provided in his policy for BI protection limits....

...Neither policy provided UM coverage. Quirk sued Key Agency and the insurance companies seeking underinsured motorist coverage, alleging that these entities failed to obtain a knowing, written rejection of UM coverage from West Coast in accordance with section 627.727, Florida Statutes....

...The parties also agree that a class II insured has standing to challenge whether the named insured made a knowing rejection of UM coverage. The essence of Travelers' argument is that the requirement of a written rejection is a mere technical requirement of section 627.727 that only the named insured has standing to raise....

...Thus, if Key Agency was a licensed agent of Travelers, Key Agency could not reject UM coverage on behalf of West Coast as a matter of law. [4] We turn now to Quirk's cross-petition, which asserts that the district court erred in affirming the summary judgment in favor of Southern American. Section 627.727 limits the applicability of the UM requirements to policies providing primary liability coverage for a motor vehicle. However, subsection (2) requires an excess carrier to "make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured, [UM benefits] up to the bodily injury liability limits contained in such policy." § 627.727(2), Fla....

...However, it is not necessary to decide this question here as it does not affect the issues argued by the parties. Southern American and Quirk agree that the 1984 version governs the Southern American policy. [3] It is undisputed that West Coast did not execute a written rejection of UM coverage pursuant to section 627.727....

...well-established to the contrary of the appellant's position. When, as here, the third party's limits are less than the UM coverage provided by the insured's own policy, underinsured motorist coverage is ipso facto provided pursuant to the terms of Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975); a person thus-insured has the absolute right to arbitration of that claim without first resorting to an action against, or achieving settlement with the third-party tortfeasor which exhausts the "underinsurance" available to him....

...Accordingly, the settlement could not have been within the contemplation of this court in the prior appeal which expressly remanded for a hearing on "collateral source benefits". Nevertheless, an UM settlement amount may still be set off if it duplicates damages otherwise awarded. Section 627.727(1), Fla....

...bile Insurance Company, Inc. We reverse because *708 Appellee failed to meet its burden of proving that it filed with the Department of Insurance revised decreased premium rates for its limited coverage policies as required by Florida Insurance Code Section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes....

...rded under Appellee's policy. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510. In short, Appellee contended in its motion that it had satisfied each one of the statutorily-mandated requirements of Florida's Insurance Code Section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes....

...E" were not sworn to or certified in any manner whatsoever as required by Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.510(e). Appellant, in her response to Appellee's motion for summary judgment, asserted that because Appellee had failed to comply with Florida's Insurance Code Section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes, she was entitled to benefits which she sought under Appellee's policy....

...ight or nine years. Plaintiffs want to hide behind it. She doesn't want to say it." The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee. In her well-reasoned order, the learned trial judge found that Appellee met all of the requirements of section 627.727(9)....

...heir authenticity or correctness. They are, without question, unverified out-of-court writings clearly offered for the purpose of establishing compliance with the provisions of Florida's insurance code; namely, the statutorily mandated provisions of section 627.727(9)....

...Watson of Adams, Sullivan, Coogler & Watson, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellees. DAUKSCH, Judge. This appeal involves the uninsured/underinsured motorist statute. On October 1, 1973 Chapter 73-180 took effect to amend Section 627.727, Florida Statutes by providing that all insurance policies issued after that date must provide uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in limits not less than the liability coverage limits in the policy....

...State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 754 So.2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction, see art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const., and we approve the Fifth District's decision in Metropolitan. This case involves interpretation of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (2004), and the timing of an underinsured motorist (UM) insurer's subrogation lawsuit....

...ement of Tepper's claim against Lucas. [Tepper's insurer,] Metropolitan[,] did not grant Tepper permission to accept the settlement offer. Instead, Metropolitan paid Tepper $25,000 and preserved its subrogation rights against Lucas [as authorized by section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes].......

...Metropolitan argued that the trial court's order dismissing Lucas and stating that "if Lucas is to be a part of these proceedings based upon the present status of the case, it would have to be based upon a third party action brought by Metropolitan" was contradictory to the statutory language in section 627.727(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), which provides: If an underinsured motorist insurer chooses to preserve its subrogation rights by refusing permission to settle, the underinsured motorist insurer must, within 30 days after receipt of t...

...In reaching this conclusion, the Fifth District addressed the trial court's ruling that Metropolitan could bring a third-party action against Lucas. The Fifth District stated: We do conclude, however, that the trial court erred in finding that Metropolitan could bring a third-party action against Lucas. The last sentence of section 627.727(6)(b) specifically provides that a UM insurer is entitled to seek subrogation against the alleged tortfeasor (and its liability insurer) "upon final resolution of the underinsured motorist claim." Based on this clear and unambiguous *...

...Lucille Mitchel. The tortfeasor's insurance carrier agreed to tender its $20,000 policy limits to the injured parties, the Mitchels, but the Mitchels' UM carrier opted instead to pay the Mitchels the $20,000 to preserve its subrogation rights under section 627.727....

...run on Dominion's claim. Dominion countered that the statute of limitations had not expired because it had not started to run until "final resolution" of the UM claim between Dominion and the injured parties. To support its argument, Dominion cited section 627.727(6)(b)'s statement that "[t]hereafter, upon final resolution of the underinsured motorist claim, the underinsured motorist insurer is entitled to seek subrogation against the underinsured motorist and the liability insurer for the amounts paid to the injured party." § 627.727(6)(b), Fla....

...final resolution of the underinsured motorist claim," the statute of limitations on that subrogation claim could not have begun to run until then. The Second District rejected Dominion's argument. The Second District explained its interpretation of section 627.727(6)(b), stating: In our view, the last sentence of subsection (6)(b) is a permissive provision, reflecting the legislature's intention that after an uninsured motorist insurer has paid its insured the amount of the proposed settlement,...

...en. Cf. § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); §§ 766.106(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 768.28(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). Dominion of Canada, 754 So.2d at 856-57 (footnotes omitted). *213 In summary, Dominion of Canada held that the last sentence of section 627.727(6)(b) was merely permissive and that therefore section 627.727 did not require that the statute of limitations period begin to run only once the UM claim was resolved. Metropolitan, on the other hand, held that the last sentence of section 627.727(6)(b) was mandatory and that no subrogation cause of action between Metropolitan and Lucas could be brought until the UM claim was resolved. This Court is now presented with these conflicting interpretations of section 627.727 on discretionary review....

...s for believing that the letter [of the statute] does not accurately disclose the [legislative] intent." State ex rel. Hanbury v. Tunnicliffe, 98 Fla. 731, 124 So. 279, 281 (1929). Accordingly, we begin our analysis with the language of the statute. Section 627.727(6) (2004), subsections (a) and (b), Florida Statutes (2004), state: (6)(a) If an injured person or, in the case of death, the personal representative agrees to settle a claim with a liability insurer and its insured, and such settleme...

...Those definitions may be derived from dictionaries. L.B. v. State, 700 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla.1997) ("[A] court may refer to a dictionary to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning which the legislature intended to ascribe to the term."). The common meaning of the terms used in section 627.727(6) supports the result that the Fifth District reached. In the first portion of section 627.727(6)(b), the statute explains that to preserve its UM subrogation rights, the UM carrier must pay the injured party — its insured — the amount the tortfeasor offered the injured party as a settlement....

...The statute then states: Thereafter, upon final resolution of the underinsured motorist claim, the underinsured motorist insurer is entitled to seek subrogation against the underinsured motorist and the liability insurer for the amounts paid to the injured party. § 627.727(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004) (emphasis added). The critical terms in the pertinent portion of section 627.727(6)(b) are "upon" and "entitled." "Upon" commonly means "on," "thereafter, thereon," and "on." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.2005) ("on;" "thereafter, thereon"); American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed.2000) ("on")....

...n in its requirement that the UM carrier is not entitled to bring a *215 subrogation claim until after the UM claim has reached "final resolution." This Court's precedent on statutory construction also supports the Fifth District's interpretation of section 627.727(6)....

...Goode, 830 So.2d 817, 824 (Fla.2002); see also Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449, 452 (Fla.2008) (repeating this quote). "[W]ords in a statute are not to be construed as superfluous if a reasonable construction exists that gives effect to all words." State v. Bodden, 877 So.2d 680, 686 (Fla.2004). Reading section 627.727(6) as permissive ignores the emphasized language "[t]hereafter, upon final resolution of the underinsured motorist claim, the underinsured motorist insurer is entitled to seek subrogation against the underinsured motorist." § 627.727(6)(b), Fla....

...the final resolution of the UM claim. We disapprove of the decision of the Second District in Dominion of Canada, which is in conflict with this holding as to the time that the statute of limitations begins to run. CONCLUSION Because the language of section 627.727(6)(b) plainly states that an UM carrier "is entitled to seek subrogation" only "upon final resolution of the underinsured motorist claim," we conclude that the statute is mandatory, as the Fifth District held in Metropolitan. This result is supported by the plain language of the statute and our precedent on statutory interpretation. We further note that because section 627.727(6) affects the substantive rights of UM carriers by limiting their ability to bring a subrogation action until final resolution of the UM claim, the statute of limitations for UM carrier subrogation claims under the statute does not begin to run until final resolution of the UM claim....

...On the merits, if it were appropriate to review this case, I would agree with the result of the majority's opinion to the extent it approves the Metropolitan decision, but would disagree that a condition precedent is required by a plain reading of section 627.727(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2004)....

...alleged tortfeasor (count I for negligence) and against Metropolitan (count II for UM benefits). Metropolitan, 969 So.2d at 404. After Metropolitan paid Tepper $25,000, the settlement offer by Lucas, and preserved its subrogation rights pursuant to section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (2004), Lucas moved to dismiss Tepper's claim without objection from Tepper....

...Metropolitan elected to not file a third-party claim under the trial court's ruling and instead appealed Lucas' dismissal. Accordingly, the third-party complaint was not brought, no legal defense to a third-party complaint under the statutory language of section 627.727(6)(b) was made, and the trial court never reached the merits of the meaning of section 627.727(6)(b)....

...On appeal to the Fifth District, Metropolitan made three arguments: (i) the trial court erred by looking beyond the four corners of the complaint when it granted *217 Lucas' motion to dismiss; (ii) the trial court's order directly conflicts with the requirements of section 627.727(6)(b); and (iii) the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because the policy language required Tepper to join Lucas as a defendant. Id. at 405-08. It is the second issue, the interpretation of section 627.727(6)(b), that is before this Court and the basis of alleged conflict jurisdiction....

...ng it to bring a third-party action because the statute required its subrogation claim to be brought after the UM claim was concluded. Specifically, in its initial brief to the Fifth District, Metropolitan argued: According to the clear language of [section 627.727(6)(b)], METROPOLITAN's subrogation claim, if any, necessarily arises after the conclusion of Tepper's UM claim against METROPOLITAN, not during the pendency of the UM claim....

...d (i) by dismissing Lucas from Tepper's claims and (ii) by concluding that a third-party action against Lucas could not be filed because the subrogation claim must wait until after final resolution of the UM claim. This second argument, interpreting section 627.727(6)(b), is contrary to the argument Metropolitan made to the Fifth District....

...Lucas answers Metropolitan's *218 initial brief by rejecting Metropolitan's "contention that it should be permitted to file a subrogation claim against LUCAS prior to the final resolution of TEPPER's UM claim.... The plain meaning of the emphasized text [from section 627.727(6)(b)] is that an insurer may not seek subrogation until after there has been a final resolution of the UM claim." Answer Brief of Respondent Angel Lucas at 9-10. This language is strangely almost identical to Metropolitan's initial brief to the Fifth District. Yet, Metropolitan, in its reply brief, states that "Florida Statute § 627.727(6)(b), contains no language prohibiting a UM carrier from seeking subrogation in a pending lawsuit." Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company's Reply Brief at 4....

...had expired." Dominion, 754 So.2d at 856. The Second District described this as a third category of subrogation cases for purposes of the statutes of limitations, a category arising from the statutory language. Id. In reviewing the last sentence of section 627.727(6)(b), the Second District stated that "it does not impose the latter [final resolution of the UM claim] as a condition precedent to the former [seeking subrogation], nor employ language to the effect that no action for subrogation may be filed until then." Id....

...action against Lucas after final resolution of Tepper's UM claim. Metropolitan, 969 *220 So.2d at 407. Thus, neither Dominion nor Metropolitan held that the statutory language imposed a condition precedent as the majority has ruled. III. MEANING OF SECTION 627.727(6)(b) On the merits, I believe that the majority utilizes an improper plain meaning analysis to determine that resolution of a UM claim is a condition precedent to bringing a subrogation claim....

...precedent or employ language that no action for subrogation may be filed until then, listing examples). Importantly, the Legislature expressly utilizes "condition precedent" language throughout the Insurance Code, but it is conspicuously missing in section 627.727(6)(b)....

...ent. See Fla. Wildlife Fed'n v. State Dep't of Envtl. Regulation, 390 So.2d 64, 67 (Fla. 1980) ("If the [Legislature had meant for the special injury rule to be preserved in the area of environmental protection, it could easily have said so."). With section 627.727(6)(b), the Legislature stops short of making final resolution of the UM claim a substantive condition precedent to filing a subrogation claim. In this case, I agree that the statutory language would prohibit Metropolitan from bringing a third-party action because the UM policy does not provide otherwise. However, the absence of condition precedent language in section 627.727(6)(b) leaves open the possibility that contractual language could alter the timing of when a subrogation claim could be brought....

...On the merits, if it were appropriate to exercise jurisdiction, I would agree with the result of the majority's opinion to the extent it approves the Metropolitan decision, but would disagree that a condition precedent is required by a plain reading of section 627.727(6)(b).

...lly garaged in the State of Florida. Said policy does not on its face afford uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to plaintiff/COHEN. A copy of the AMERICAN HOME policy is attached hereto as Exhibit C. "8. The Florida Uninsured Motorist Statute, Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, in pertinent part, provides: * * * * * * "`(1) No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in...

...odily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist coverage.' "9. It is apparent that under the law of the State of Florida, and specifically the provisions of Section 627.727, supra, that defendant/RESERVE and defendant/AMERICAN HOME, as issuers of policies of insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles, were obligated to either provide uninsured motoris...

...1st DCA 1973). With these general principles in mind, appellant contends that, in the instant case, the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint for a declaratory judgment against appellee American Home Assurance Co. on the grounds of no coverage. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977), the pertinent parts of which have been set forth above in the subject complaint, requires that any insurer issuing a policy of insurance affording automobile liability insurance to a Florida insured must prov...

...h a rejection or selection must be in writing. In Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Green, 327 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), the court held that an "excess indemnity policy" was one of "automobile liability insurance" within the terms and provisions of Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977), and that an "excess umbrella" insurer had to afford uninsured motorist coverage to its insured to the full extent of the policy limits....

...American Home policy would provide automobile liability insurance on an "excess umbrella" basis. Thus, under the facts alleged in the subject complaint, because appellee American Home insured appellant for automobile liability coverage, pursuant to Section 627.727, it must also provide appellant with uninsured-underinsured motorist coverage, unless such coverage was rejected by him....

...20,000 per occurrence. Kenilworth's coverage of Troyan was $10,000 per person, and it offered its policy limits to Spaulding to settle her claim on behalf of her son. AFIC failed to timely approve the settlement. Spaulding, therefore, pursuant to subsection 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1977), instituted an action for damages against Troyan and Kenilworth, for uninsured motorist benefits against AFIC and F & C, and for attorneys' fees from AFIC....

...r $250,000. The evidence before the trial court established that on November 3, 1977 Suder authorized his insurance agent to increase his bodily injury insurance per person from $100,000 to $250,000. At this time he was informed that, pursuant to subsection 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1977), uninsured motorist coverage of $250,000 was available to him....

...rneys' fees, but on rehearing the court reversed its position and held that Spaulding was entitled to attorneys' fees at the trial level. In holding that the correct amount of uninsured motorist coverage was $250,000, the district court construed subsection 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), as requiring that the insurer inform the insured, Burton Suder, of his statutory right to higher uninsured motorist coverage with every "material" policy endorsement....

...It is so ordered. ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents. NOTES [1] It should be noted that our decision in Kimbrell had not yet been handed down at the time of the fourth district's opinion in Spaulding. [2] § 627.727(2) states: (2) The limits of uninsured motorist coverage shall be not less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the named insured, or such lower limit complying with the company's rating plan as may be selected by the named insured .. . [3] When the instant cause of action arose, § 627.727(1) provided in relevant part: (1) No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor...

...in writing, the coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy when the named insured had rejected the coverage in connection with a policy previously issued to him by the same insurer. [4] We note that the legislature amended § 627.727(1) in ch. 82-386, §§ 66, Laws of Fla. (1982), thereby eliminating any possibility that this section will again be interpreted as requiring an offer of uninsured motorist coverage with every "material" policy change. § 627.727(1) (Supp....

...As a result of the Melillo settlement, there is $4,000 of available liability coverage under the Dowdell insurance policy. It is agreed by the parties that the Dowdell car was as a matter of law an underinsured vehicle and therefore an uninsured vehicle under Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...ntiffs under the automobile liability insurance *41 coverage of the underinsured Melillo car, to wit: $4,000. The court reserved jurisdiction in the cause to determine the actual damages sustained by the plaintiff. This interlocutory appeal follows. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975) states the applicable statutory law on uninsured motorist insurance coverage as follows: "(1) No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor...

...Uninsured (which also means underinsured) motorist coverage "shall be excess over but shall not duplicate benefits available to an insured ... under any automobile liability ... coverages ... from the owner or operator of the uninsured motorist vehicle ..." § 627.727(1), Fla....

...Upon appellant's refusal appellee filed a complaint to compel arbitration pursuant to § 682.02 F.S. 1973. Issue was joined by appellant's answer, and the matter culminated in an order of April 8, 1975, which held, 1) appellant was required to submit to arbitration, and 2) pursuant to § 627.727(2)(b) F.S....

...1973, appellees were entitled to "stack" the uninsured motorist coverage of both policies so that the coverage available to appellees is $20,000 and $60,000. The plenary appeal in #75-990 is to review the second part of that order. The first question before us is whether § 627.727(2)(b) F.S....

...Government Employees Insurance Co., Fla. 1974, 288 So.2d 238, which specifically approved Sellers v. Government Employees Insurance Co., Fla.App. 1968, 1 DCA, 214 So.2d 879. Appellant acknowledges the foregoing rule as it applies to uninsured motorist coverage provisions of § 627.727(2). However, appellant contends the coverage provided for in § 627.727(2)(b), euphemistically referred to as "underinsured motorist coverage," should be treated differently because when the Sellers case was decided the legislature had not provided for underinsured *625 motorist coverage. In addition, appellant contends that because § 627.727(2)(b) contains the language "subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage," an insured may stack multiple underinsured motorist coverages only if the policies involved expressly permit him to do so. But appellee aptly points out that when the Sellers case was decided, the predecessor or § 627.727(2), (§ 627.0851(2) F.S....

...1967) also contained the clause "subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage," and the policies in question did not expressly provide for "stacking." Suffice it to say that we see no reason to treat the two coverages differently. By definition underinsured motorist coverage is uninsured motorist coverage, § 627.727(2)(b)....

...nimum limits of $10,000 effectively nullify appellees' coverage. As appellant puts it: set off first and then stack. On the contrary, we believe stacking should come before any set off. This resolution of the second point fully honors the mandate of § 627.727(1) that the coverage in question shall be excess over but shall not duplicate the benefits available under the tort-feasor's automobile liability coverage....

...CROSS, J., and FOGLE, HARRY W., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] See the title to Chapter 73-180, which provides, among other things, that the act is to provide "that uninsured vehicle coverage shall also be underinsured vehicle coverage..." [2] Codified as § 627.727(2)(b) F.S....

...These damages include interest, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in both the bad faith litigation and in the resolution *114 of the underlying claim as a result of the insurer's conduct in delaying payment. Subsequent to McLeod, the legislature amended section 627.727 to permit a first party insured in a bad faith claim under section 624.155 to recover as damages "the amount in excess of the policy limits" and to specify that "the total amount of the claimant's damages are recoverable whether caused by an insurer or by a third-party tortfeasor." § 627.727(10), Fla....

...NOTES [1] At the time the complaint was filed, section 624.155, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988) was in effect. Except for the addition of subsection (7) in 1990, which has no substantive bearing on this case, the wording of this section remains unchanged. [2] Section 627.727 was amended in July 1992 to add subsection (10), which clarifies recoverable damages in actions brought under section 624.155....

...M) in limits less than the stated bodily injury liability coverage from the named insured, Biff's father Leon Carl Adams (Mr. Adams), and that Aetna did not give the named insured sufficient notice of the availability of such coverage as required by section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1982 Supp.)....

...mit provided in the policy, and never signed a UM/UIM form indicating either rejection or selection of lower limits that would permit Aetna to issue the original policies with the reduced UM/UIM coverage. A. The Statutory Provision The provisions in section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1982 Supp.), governed the renewal of the policies in November 1982 and May 1983, the last renewal dates for each policy immediately preceding the date of the accidental injuries to Adams. Aetna's statutory duty to provide UM/UIM coverage with limits equal to the policy's bodily injury liability coverage limits, unless negated by the named insured's written rejection of such coverage, is found in the following provisions of section 627.727: (1) No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is prov...

...This added provision is not a mere technicality but a substantial statutory requirement designed to protect all insureds under the policy. Chmieloski v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 563 So.2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Vasquez v. Bankers Ins. Co., 502 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1987). The provisions of section 627.727 reflect a "legislative intent to place a *1147 heavy duty upon insurers to obtain a knowing rejection of statutorily provided for uninsured motorist limits and to reflect a public policy in Florida to favor full uninsured motorist coverage for Florida residents, see also Hodges v....

...However, whether a named insured knowingly rejected or selected UM/UIM limits lower than required by statute is ordinarily an issue of fact for the jury in the absence of a signed rejection thereof. Kimbrell, 420 So.2d 1086; Vasquez, 502 So.2d at 895-96. The cases construing and applying section 627.727 have made it clear that a knowing rejection of statutory UM/UIM limits cannot be implied from the fact that lower limits are stated in the application, and that the insurer's failure to obtain the statutorily required signed written r...

...2d DCA 1990) (once insured establishes no written rejection form exists, the burden of proof shifts to the insurance company to prove that the named insured waived the right to a written rejection by otherwise making a knowing rejection of the coverage required by statute. Id. at 715). B. Application of Section 627.727 in this case The evidence in this case is sufficiently in dispute to allow the jury to determine whether Mr....

...Adams with the premium notices and that the forms so enclosed for requesting UM/UIM limits higher than those specified on the face of each original policy were not returned by Mr. Adams. Without obtaining written rejections in compliance with the newly-amended section 627.727, Aetna was unquestionably obligated by law to be liable for UM/UIM limits equal to the liability limits, unless Mr....

...reof from the insured's failure to respond to such offer. The court's decision in Marchesano was undoubtedly a sound one on the facts before it and completely in accord with the statutory scheme and purpose clearly evidenced by the 1982 amendment to section 627.727. But to accord to that decision a broader ruling as described above and apply that ruling to the facts of the instant case would produce a result directly counter to the statutory scheme and purpose. This is easily demonstrated. Section 627.727 makes it unlawful for an insurance company to issue or deliver a motor vehicle policy without the UM/UIM coverage as specified in that section; [8] however, "the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable when, or to...

...Each insurer shall at least annually notify the named insured of his options as to coverage required by this section. Such notice shall be part of the notice of premium, shall provide for a means to allow the insured to request such coverage, and shall be given in a manner approved by the department. Section 627.727(1)....

...'s agent, Bacon, without even discussing the matter with Mr. Adams. Thus, unlike Nationwide's conduct in the Marchesano case, Aetna unlawfully issued and delivered the original policies in this case in direct violation of the statutory provisions in section 627.727....

...statutorily required coverage. The original policy UM/UIM limits were simply void ab initio, and Aetna was at all times obligated to provide the statutorily-required coverage under those policies. Aetna was not authorized by any of the provisions in section 627.727 to thereafter cure the error in its original policies and effect a change in the policy limits simply by mailing out the brochures previously described advising Mr....

...s. To prevail on its defense of waiver in this case, Aetna must prove not only that it sent the brochures to *1153 Mr. Adams in 1983, as it contends, but also that prior thereto Mr. Adams somehow gained actual knowledge of his statutory rights under section 627.727 and Aetna's failure to issue the policies in accordance with those statutory requirements, and that thereafter Mr....

...e requisite knowledge of his statutory rights and the coverage afforded thereunder by the statute, would defy logic and reason and accord to Aetna a procedure for correcting its initial statutory violation that is nowhere provided in the language of section 627.727, as amended....

...premium notices in full compliance with the statute. While our initial reaction to that opinion was somewhat similar to the trial court's, on closer examination and analysis of the Marchesano decision and the purpose and public policy manifested in section 627.727, as amended, it became clear that to apply the statute to the facts that could be found by the jury in the instant case and find waiver as a matter of law would completely emasculate the obvious statutory scheme; it would authorize an...

...sequences dictated by the statutory language through the simple expedient of mailing out brochures such as those purportedly sent to Mr. Adams. To give this effect to the statute would be to simply revert to the law and practice as it existed before section 627.727 was initially enacted and essentially bind an insured to the facial limits of a policy delivered to and accepted by an insured without objection to the stated UM limits. Section 627.727 was enacted to avoid the effect of this practice by shifting the burden of compliance with statutory requirements to the insurer....

...eing contrary to the actual facts in this case, are pure dictum. [10] Moreover, it is not clear from the court's opinion that it even considered the arguments made in this case; the opinion does not set forth an analysis of the various provisions in section 627.727, as amended, and explain the interplay of the statutory language regarding the need for and legal effect of not having a written rejection, as we have done in this opinion. 2. In the second place, in Marchesano the trial court submitted to the jury the question of whether Nationwide's uninsured motorist notice to the Marchesanos fully complied with all the requirements of section 627.727, and the jury found that it did....

...Bacon's Appeal, Case No. 88-1104 On its appeal from the judgment entered on the jury verdict for Adams, Bacon makes three points, none of which warrants reversal of that judgment. We deal briefly with each point in order. A. Aetna's Compliance with Section 627.727 Exonerates Bacon Bacon's first point is that the trial court erred in denying its motions for summary judgment and directed verdict because Aetna had fully complied with the requirements of section 627.727....

...Adams had affixed his signature to at least four uninsured motorists selection forms and that this fact conclusively demonstrates a knowing selection of UM limits both as to it, as agent, and as to Aetna, the insurer. Bacon further argues that Aetna's compliance with the annual notification requirements of section 627.727, as evidenced by the directed verdict for Aetna, relieves Bacon as Aetna's agent of responsibility to convey identical information to the insured, Mr....

...While this evidence is appropriately considered by the trier of fact along with all the other evidence of Mr. Adams's knowledge, it is insufficient to support a ruling for Bacon as a matter of law. Bacon's argument that Aetna's compliance with the notice provisions of section 627.727 warrants a decision in Bacon's favor as a matter of law is also without merit....

...Adams with 54% comparative negligence, the $300,000 should be reduced by that factor to $138,000, and this figure treated as the total policy limits that would have been available to Mr. Adams; since $50,000 was recovered from the actual tortfeasors and is required to be set off against the UM coverage pursuant to section 627.727, Bacon's liability should be reduced to $88,000....

...[4] Until the 1982 amendment became effective, there had been no statutory requirement that an insurer obtain a written rejection of the statutory limits of UM/UIM, although many insurers had apparently followed the practice of doing so. [5] The use of the word "delivered" in conjunction with the word "issued" in section 627.727(1) is no meaningless redundancy....

...Once Nationwide fulfilled its statutory duty it could not reasonably be expected to do more. The Marchesanos must now take responsibility for their own failure to read and respond to the enclosed notices. Accordingly, we rule that where the insurance company complies with the annual notice provision of section 627.727(1) the insured's failure to act upon that notice at the time of renewal constitutes an affirmative waiver of uninsured motorist coverage limits higher than those specified in the purchased policy. 506 So.2d at 413 (emphasis added). [8] Section 627.727(1) specifically reads: "No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state ... unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto... ." [9] This interpretation of the operation of section 627.727 in 1983 is strongly reinforced by the underlying purpose of the 1984 amendment to that section providing that if a written rejection on a form having the content stipulated by statute is signed by the named insured, "it will be conclu...

...h being struck by the motor vehicle. We agree with the court below that these provisions, which operate to deny the plaintiff benefits for his injuries under the facts of this case, are contrary to the public policy established by the legislature in section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985). We begin with the premise that any insurer who offers a motor vehicle liability insurance policy in this state is required by section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985) [1] to offer uninsured motorist coverage....

...which no liability insurance is available. Thus, to the extent that these policy provisions have denied the plaintiff protection for injuries caused by an uninsured motorist, we must declare them invalid as contrary to the public policy expressed in section 627.727, Florida Statutes....

...aused his injury. Accordingly, under Boynton, the insurer is required by law to provide uninsured motorist benefits to its insured. For these reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED. UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985) states: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or principally garage...

...rtionately responsible with Travelers for the payment of uninsured motorist benefits to Dominguez. In another lawsuit, Dominguez had successfully obtained a finding of fact that Penn was obligated for $100,000 uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975), because Dominguez had not specifically rejected uninsured motorist limits equivalent to his liability coverage....

...uninsured motorist coverage, and that (2) even if it is responsible for $1,000,000 of uninsured motorist coverage, this coverage should be deemed excess over the first $200,000 of coverage provided by Penn and Travelers. There are no cross-appeals. Section 627.727 has been consistently interpreted to mean that an insured is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage equal to the limits of his motor vehicle liability coverage unless he makes an affirmative and informed rejection of such coverage....

...ed to the accident. [2] Item I extends coverage to vehicles not owned by the insured but being operated by the insured because the owned vehicle is out of use because of breakdown, repair, servicing or loss. [3] After Brixius the legislature amended section 627.727(3), Florida Statutes (1991), by adding subsection (c)....

...To the extent that PIP and workers' compensation benefits do not compensate for pain and suffering, for example, they do not duplicate coverage and therefore should not be set off. The Carters further argue that Chapter 79-241, Laws of Florida (1979) amending Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), clarifies legislative intent and as such is a remedial statute and should be retroactively applied. Alternatively, they argue the amendment goes only to procedure and should be retroactively applied. We do not agree with any of these contentions. Therefore, we affirm. This court has twice ruled that under Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), PIP benefits are to be set off against the injured party's UM coverage....

...3d DCA 1976), State v. City of Coral Gables, 72 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1964). Under the existing law at the time this insurance contract was entered into, PIP benefits and workers' compensation benefits were to be set off against uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...I would reverse. Giving effect to the clarifying language in Chapter 79-241, Laws of Florida, would not unconstitutionally impair existing insurance contracts since insurance companies were not justified in relying on any particular construction of Section 627.727(1), an ambiguous statute, and one which automobile-collision litigants have been struggling with since its inception....

...1978), the Florida Supreme Court construed the effect of an amendment to Chapter 627 which substantially altered the benefits available to insureds under uninsured motorists clauses of their policies. Here, the legislature has merely added language clarifying Section 627.727(1), by providing that "[o]nly the underinsured motorist's automobile liability insurance shall be set-off against underinsured motorist coverage." Before this court's opinion in Masters v....

...s construction. Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. F.C.C., 395 U.S. 367, 380-81, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969). Clearly we are free to recede from our earlier opinion in the face of remedial language in Chapter 79-241, clarifying the meaning of Section 627.727(1) as it was first enacted....

...) coverage as a passenger in an automobile insured under a business automobile insurance policy. The policy attempts to provide UM coverage to the named insured and its corporate officers while excluding coverage for other insureds. We conclude that section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1999), does not authorize this type of limitation on UM coverage....

...Thus, the question in this case is whether a business auto policy can be written to include the sole stockholder and his family within the UM coverage while excluding all other class II insureds. We conclude that Florida law does not permit such limitations on coverage. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1999), requires UM coverage unless "an insured named in the policy makes a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy." It is undisputed that K W Electric did not make a written rejection of UM coverage. Section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1999), lists five limitations that insurance companies may place on UM coverage. These five limitations do not include a provision that allows an exclusion of particular individuals from UM coverage. See § 627.727(9)(a)-(e), Fla....

...ompanies or motorists who cause damage to other people. Id. at 744-45. This statutory protection is not to be "`whittled away' by exclusions and exceptions." Id. at 745 (quoting Young v. Progressive S.E. Ins. Co., 753 So.2d 80, 83 (Fla.2000)). Under section 627.727(1), an insured may reject UM coverage "on behalf of all insureds under the policy," but the statute does not allow rejection of UM coverage on behalf of only some insureds under the policy....

...We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT, J., Concurs. VILLANTI, J., Concurs with opinion. VILLANTI, J., Concurring. I reluctantly concur in the majority's opinion because it is unequivocally mandated by the clear language of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1999). However, like the trial judge, I do not believe that the legislature intended the result that section 627.727(1) mandates on these facts, i.e., to abrogate a commercial insured's freedom to contract by requiring it to purchase UM coverage that not only duplicates coverage available to employees under K W Electric's worker's compensation polic...

...Gieseke, 697 So.2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). NOTICE OF UM COVERAGE The Weesners further claim that the opportunity to obtain UM coverage at the time of application and at a subsequent renewal was inadequate because USAA did not comply with the notice requirements of subsection 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...However, an insurer issuing such a policy shall make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of the insured, limits up to the bodily injury liability limits contained in such policy. See Tres v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 705 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (§ 627.727(2) does not contain the same requirements as § 627.727(1); § 627.727(2) only requires an issuer of a non-primary policy to notify an applicant of the availability of UM coverage); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So.2d 1026 (Fla.1991)(court opined inter alia that § 627.727(2) "requires an issuer of an umbrella policy to notify an applicant of the availability of UM coverage"). Mr. Weesner admitted in his deposition that he was informed of the availability of the UM coverage when he applied for the umbrella *1194 policy. Thus, we find USAA fulfilled its only requirement under subsection 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1989), of notifying Mr....

...Unger, P.A., Miami, and Wolfson & Diamond, P.A., Miami Beach, for appellees. MOORE, Judge. Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, excess automobile insurers for the *1353 Kovens, appeals from a summary judgment determining that Empire provided uninsured motorist coverage limits of $100,000/$300,000. We reverse. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1973), effective at the time of the application for the policy in this case, required insurance companies to provide uninsured motorist coverage limits equal to the liability limits unless the insured rejected such coverage....

...ntil either (1) the tortfeasor's liability carrier agrees to a settlement which would not fully satisfy the personal injury claim or (2) the underinsured motorist carrier breaches the contract of insurance by denying the claim. [2] They contend that section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1987), enacted subsequent to the Kilbreath accident but before the Woodalls' accident, [3] rendered Kilbreath inapplicable to underinsured motorist cases. Section 627.727(6) reads as follows: (6) If an injured person or, in the case of death, the personal representative agrees to settle a claim with a liability insurer and its insured for the limits of *1363 liability, and such settlement would not ful...

...section (1). Any award in such action against the liability insurer's insured is binding and conclusive as to the injured person and underinsured motorist insurer's liability for damages up to its coverage limits. The Woodalls argue that pursuant to section 627.727(6), a cause of action against an underinsured motorist carrier does not arise until it is "created" by a settlement with the liability carrier....

...m should accrue at a different time from when it accrues for an uninsured motorist claim. The philosophy behind both is to provide an alternative source of revenue to compensate for the inadequacy of the tortfeasor's liability coverage. We interpret section 627.727(6) as merely setting forth a procedure to be followed when a claimant settles with the tortfeasor's liability carrier....

...tortfeasor's liability carrier. We instein v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 376 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Reyer, 362 So.2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Arrieta v. Volkswagen Ins. Co., 343 So.2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Nothing in section 627.727(6) purports to change this....

...Accordingly, they contend that they were simply complying with the express language of the policy by filing suit against the tortfeasor in order to collect under the tortfeasor's liability coverage. When the tortfeasor's liability carrier agreed to settle the case, the Woodalls also complied with the requirement of section 627.727(6) by submitting the settlement to Travelers for its approval....

...In my view, and apparently the view of Justices Adkins and Sundberg who dissented to this Court's decision in Kilbreath, the law of contracts should govern actions initiated under the provisions of such insurance contracts. KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(3), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that the term "uninsured motor vehicle" includes one for which a bodily injury liability policy has been provided that contains limits which are less than the uninsured motorist coverage limits applicable to the injured person, i.e., an underinsured motor vehicle....

...ull extent of the damages he suffered in the accident with the underinsured driver. In the complaint, he stated that he was “entitled to recover damages from the Defendant, Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, in accordance with the provisions of § 627.727.” That section provides that the *1217 damages an insured can recover in a bad faith action “shall include the total amount of the claimant’s damages, including the amount in excess of the policy limits, any interest on unpaid benefits, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and any damages caused by a violation of a law of this state.’’ § 627.727(10), Fla....

...it’s premature and inappropriate to litigate a bad faith case concurrent with a UM case.” The trial court ultimately denied Safeco’s motion to “confess judgment,” finding that to do otherwise “would ignore the plain legislative intent of section 627.727(10),” governing the damages recoverable in bad faith actions....

...law, reasonable attorney’s fees.” Id. at 20 . The Fifth District reasoned that this “would provide Fridman a sufficient basis to pursue a bad faith claim against Safeco,” because “Fridman can seek the full measure of damages afforded by- [section 627.727(10) ] in a subsequent bad faith action.” Id....

...based on the mootness doctrine, end Fridman’s right to have the jury determine the full extent of his damages. The majority has misread the Notice of Civil Remedy.filed by Fridman; the pleadings, filed in this case; and the provisions of sections 627.727 and 624.166, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...claim, and instead could recover only those damages that were the “natural, proximate, probable, or direct consequence of the insurer’s bad faith actions.” Id. Just months after this Court issued its opinion in McLeod , the Legislature enacted section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes (1992), to provide: The....

...' (Emphasis added.) The language of the amended section, which remains the same today, clearly and unambigúously reflects the legislative intent that the damages in section 624.155 bad faith actions shall include any amount in excess of the policy limits. See § 627.727(10), Fla....

....Consequently,,first-party .bad faith claims under section 624.155 should be treated in the same manner as third-party bad faith claims. 3 Importantly, in both first- and third-party bad faith actions, an element , of damages includes any amount in excess, of the policy limits. See § 627.727(10), Fla....

...the full extent of damages before litigating the bad faith cause of action. In the fourth case, this Court in Laforet, 658 So.2d 55 , considered the amount of damages to which an insurer would be exposed in a bad faith action, in addressing whether section 627.727(10) was retroactive....

...claimant’s damages, including any amount in excess of the claimant’s policy limits without regard to whether the damages were caused by the insurance company” — damages that are, in substance, a penalty.- Id. at 60 . This Court noted that if section 627.727(10) had been applicable ⅛ that case, “under the retroactive application of the new statute, [the insurer] was liable for the entire excess judgment awarded to the Laforets in their original [UM] case.” Id....

...9, 117-18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (Sawaya, J., dissenting). Accordingly, the Fifth District’s decision here — which authorizes this exact type of conduct — incentivizes insurers to undergo tactics that are adverse 'to the legislative intent behind section 627.727(10)....

...er its policy limits and attempt to confess judgment years into the litigation, and after it requested a continuance of the scheduled trial date, Fridman argued that he had a right to seek a judgment in excess of the policy limits in accordance with section 627.727(10) for the bad faith action he planned to file....

...Finally, we make clear that the insurer has the full opportunity to defend its actions related to its handling of the insured’s UM insurance claim when litigating the bad faith action. In other words, just because the amount of the UM verdict is a binding element of damages under section 627.727(10) in the bad faith case, the insurer is not precluded from explaining its actions in failing to pay the policy limits when demanded and presenting its case for why it did not act in bad faith in the handling of the UM claim....

...ance coverage of the tort feasor). By stacking the two, he contends that he is entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits from both Government Employees and Travelers up to a maximum of $60,000. The trial court construed the applicable statute, § 627.727(2)(b), Fla. Stat. 1975, to allow such stacking. We disagree and reverse. § 627.727(2)(b), Fla....

...The judgment determined that the Deckers were not entitled to underinsured motorist coverage limits in an amount equivalent to the bodily injury limits of the policy. The trial court, in making this determination, strictly construed the language of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1979), as pertaining only to insurance policies delivered or issued for delivery in this state and found that Florida law, specifically section 627.727, does not apply to this case....

...g the policy period." The insurer, Great American, and the named insured, the Moore Group, are sister companies or wholly owned subsidiaries of a parent company known as American Financial Corporation. The question before the trial court was whether section 627.727 applies. If section 627.727 does apply, the policy limit in regard to uninsured motorist coverage would be equal to the $1,000,000 bodily injury limit of the policy, absent a prior rejection, particularly since the policy itself was silent as to any such limits as it pertained to coverage in Florida. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Beaver, 355 So.2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The pertinent parts of section 627.727 are as follows: (1) No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle...

...Holding that rejection after the accident was ineffective regarding coverage at the time of the deposit or at the time of the accident, the court refused to assume from the rejection that it was the insured's intent ab initio not to have uninsured motorist coverage. The trial court here interpreted section 627.727 narrowly as being applicable only to policies delivered or issued for delivery in Florida regardless of whether or not the automobile insured was registered in or primarily garaged in Florida. As a consequence of that interpretation, the trial court then concluded that whether or when the named insured rejected the higher uninsured motorist limits was irrelevant and immaterial. We find that the trial court's interpretation of section 627.727 is not consistent with the primary public policy concerns which the uninsured motorist statute seeks to address....

...Therefore, the court held that Florida had sufficient contacts with the insured in order to apply the law of Florida. We agree with the public policy considerations discussed in Gillen and Bishop, and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court below. We hold that section 627.727 is applicable to increase the uninsured motorist coverage of the Moore Group's insurance policy to an amount equivalent to the bodily injury coverage limit....

...ical payment benefits which that carrier had paid. The set-off would be against uninsured motorist insurance benefits paid to appellee by appellant. This case is quite similar to Carter v. Government Emp. Ins. Co., 377 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), is the applicable statute and it has been interpreted to allow a set-off....

...In Carter, the court held Chapter 79-241, Laws of Florida, effective October 1, 1979, [1] cannot be applied "retroactively" because that would result in an unconstitutional impairment of contract. We disagree with Carter for the reasons Judge Ervin stated in his dissent and because we interpret section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), not to allow a set-off for PIP and medical benefits....

...not entitled to PIP benefits under paragraph 1 of the foregoing statute, but under paragraph 3, he does qualify for such benefits under his daughter's and son's policies. Uninsured (underinsured) motorist benefits would be payable to appellee under § 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1975), only if he himself had an insurance policy affording uninsured motorist's coverage in excess of the $10,000 coverage of the vehicle which hit him....

...at by doing so his uninsured (underinsured) motorist coverage would then exceed the liability coverage of the third party thereby bringing into play underinsured motorist coverage and he would be entitled to recover up to $50,000. We there construed § 627.727(2)(b), Fla....

...000 total of the uninsured (underinsured) motorist coverage and the pickup truck. Upon reconsideration of this entire matter, we have determined that the construction which we placed upon the words "his uninsured motorist's coverage" as contained in § 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes 1975, was more restrictive than the legislature intended by the use of such term. Prior to the amendment of § 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1971), by Chapter 73-180, Laws of Florida, which added under insured motorist coverage and brought it under the umbrella of un insured motorist coverage, the Supreme Court in Mullis v....

...Reid is inapplicable. 486 So.2d at 555 n. 5. See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dascoli, 497 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1986). We agree with the court below that this case is controlled by Reid. It should be noted that since our decision in Reid the legislature has not amended section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987), to require uninsured motorist benefits be provided an insured when liability benefits are unavailable because of a valid liability exclusion in the same policy under which uninsured motorist benefits are sought....

...The legislature expressly has stated that the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage is for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...and, hence, the foundations of no-fault insurance itself. There may be reasons for allowing enforcement of certain types of exclusionary clauses expressly limiting uninsured motorist coverage in circumstances consistent with public policy. [2] E.g., § 627.727(9), Fla....

...v. Willoughby, 315 So.2d 553 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The Mobley case held that damages for loss of consortium were recoverable under uninsured motorist coverage. The Leatherby case held that damages for an intentional tort were recoverable. The statute, Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1973), provides that damages resulting from "......

...We conclude from the law as established and the reading of the statute that the uninsured motorist coverage in the State of Florida does not include liability for punitive damages. Affirmed. NOTES [1] The parties have agreed that for the purpose of determining the amount of the coverage, the court properly considered Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1973), which is for the purposes of this appeal identical with Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...ers of his immediate family to secure his right to any collateral source benefit which he is receiving as a result of his injury. (Emphasis supplied.) [5] Allstate has also argued that the PIP and medpay benefits were available within the meaning of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1993), pertaining to uninsured motorist coverage, and should have been set off from the verdict on that basis. Section 627.727(1) provides that uninsured motorist coverage shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured under ......

...and such coverage shall cover the difference, if any, between the sum of such benefits and the damages sustained, up to the maximum amount of such coverage provided under this section. In the present case, the Fourth District concluded that the term "available" within section 627.727(1) should be interpreted no differently than in section 768.76(1)....

...We decline to address this issue because the basis for our jurisdiction in this case is the certification of conflict with Kokotis regarding the definition of the term "payable" in section 627.736(3), and because there is no conflict among the decisions on the application of section 627.727(1)....

...5th DCA), review denied, 626 So.2d 1367 (Fla.1993). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We hold the jury should be aware that an underinsured motorist (UM) insurer which is properly sued and joined in an action against a tortfeasor under section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991), is a party in the case....

...Accordingly, we approve the decision below and disapprove Colford. Candace Lippincott rear-ended Susan Krawzak's car. Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) was both Lippincott's liability insurer and Krawzak's UM insurer. Krawzak subsequently sued both GEICO, as the UM carrier pursuant to section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes, and Lippincott. No party contested the applicability of section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...ld handle GEICO's presence in the action on remand. [2] First, the court noted that the insurance contract between GEICO and Krawzak required Krawzak to sue GEICO in a civil action to recover UM coverage. Id. at 309. Next, the court found that under section 627.727(6), Krawzak had the right to join the tortfeasor and the UM insurer in one action to resolve their respective liabilities. Since Krawzak had a direct cause of action against GEICO as the UM insurer under the contract as well as under section 627.727(6), the court reasoned that the presence of a UM insurer who is lawfully sued and properly joined in a suit should be disclosed to the jury in its actual status as a party defendant....

...sion in Dosdourian v. Carsten, 624 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1993), which encouraged full disclosure before the jury. 660 So.2d at 310. Consequently, the court certified conflict with Colford. Id. In Colford, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that under section 627.727(6), the presence of a UM insurer should not be disclosed to the jury. The court reasoned that the same considerations preventing disclosure of the presence of liability insurance under section 627.7262, Florida Statutes (1991) (nonjoinder of insurers), should apply to actions under section 627.727(6), a required joinder statute....

...The court found that in a case in which there was no dispute over whether coverage existed, the considerations preventing disclosure outweighed the requirement that the UM insurer was required to be a party. Id. at 783. We approve the decision below and resolve the conflict by finding that in actions to which section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991), is applicable, it is appropriate for a jury to be aware of the presence of a UM insurer which has been properly joined in the action against the tortfeasor. We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the district court in this case and disapprove Colford to the extent it is in conflict with the district court's decision on this issue. We specifically note that section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991), sets forth the procedure to be followed when a UM insurer does not approve a settlement with an underinsured tortfeasor....

...The unknown consequences of such a fiction could adversely affect the rights of the insured who contracted and paid for this insurance. Accordingly, we approve the decision below and disapprove Colford. It is so ordered. KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(6) provides: If an injured person or, in the case of death, the personal representative agrees to settle a claim with a liability insurer and its insured for the limits of liability, and such settlement would not fully satisfy the cla...

...vil action. [2] The district court also directed the trial court on remand to give the jury consistent instructions concerning the elements of past and future medical expenses which can be awarded. Id. at 308-09. [3] In 1992, the legislature amended section 627.727(6), and under the present statute, an action for UM coverage would solely be against the UM carrier. See Ch. 92-318, Laws of Fla.; § 627.727(6), Fla.Stat....

...Allyn, the insured, was struck down by such a motor vehicle. If our construction is in conflict with Valdes, supra, then so be it. The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED. BOYER, C.J., and McCORD, J., concur. NOTES [1] It is noted at the outset that the uninsured motorist statute, F.S. 627.727, is not a part of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, F.S....

...If the named insured were here asserting the existence of coverage it might insist on its own written rejection. Here defendant was a stranger to the negotiations leading to the policy. Appellant contends the absolute requirement of a written rejection is supported by Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971), and State Insurance Department Bulletin 586 as recently upheld in Harris v....

...The Third District Court of Appeal found Peralta's argument to have merit and reversed the trial court. Medina, 705 So.2d at 704. The district court relied upon Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Krawzak, 675 So.2d 115, 117 (Fla.1996), in which this Court held that "in actions to which section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991), is applicable, it is appropriate for a jury to be aware of the presence of a UM insurer which has been properly joined in the action against the tortfeasor." Medina, 705 So.2d at 703....

...However, as Judge Klein states, Brush did not address the issue of the availability of harmless error analysis. We have considered Stecher and do not believe that it supports harmless error analysis as it does not pertain to an action against a UM carrier based upon section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...[2] Petitioners first argue in this Court that no error occurred because the court's preclusion of the identity of Allstate did not affect the action against them as tortfeasors. We find no merit in this argument. In Krawzak, we addressed the UM carrier's status at trial and concluded that section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991), required a UM/UIM carrier to be a necessary party to such action and held that the jury should be aware of all parties, including a UM carrier....

...The insurer appeals from a summary judgment for the insured, finding that (a) underinsured motorist insurance to the extent of the bodily injury liability coverage was provided the insured who was not offered and did not reject coverage to that extent, as provided in Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975); and (b) the insured was entitled to stack the amounts of additional uninsured motorist coverage thus provided by the policy, which insured against bodily injury liability in respect to four vehicles....

...The insured did not sign a written rejection of additional uninsured motorist coverage, and the only countervailing evidence was testimony by the agent, who testified only that his general practice was to offer insureds uninsured motorist coverage in accordance with Section 627.727(1)....

...out extrinsic evidence, be implied from the insured's signature on an application for uninsured motorist coverage to lower limits; that the insurer otherwise offered no competent evidence that the insured rejected the additional coverage required by Section 627.727(1); and that the insured is entitled to judgment as a matter of law....

...Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993), requires that, for a proper apportionment of fault, Dr. Wengler's name must be placed on the verdict form. REVERSED FOR NEW TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES. GUNTHER, C.J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Compare § 627.727(2), Fla....

...ds principally garaged in New Jersey. The insurance policy herein was therefore not subject to the Florida statutory requirement that the uninsured motorist coverage limits contained therein must equal to the liability coverage limits of the policy, § 627.727(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1983), because this requirement is applicable only to motor vehicle liability insurance policies "delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state... ." § 627.727(1), Fla....

...[4] Ms. Bulone does not ask us to recede from those cases, but rather argues that the legislature intended to increase the coverage available for class II insureds through an amendment in 1989. III. THE 1989 AMENDMENT In 1989, the legislature amended section 627.727, in pertinent part, deleting and adding language as follows: (1) ......

...on to the insurer and insured on a separate policy. The statute has no definitions requiring this interpretation, and it permits the coverage to be "subject to the terms and conditions" of the uninsured motorist policy. After reading the entirety of section 627.727, as amended, it is reasonable to assume that the legislature is referring to two different insurance policies, and is not intending to stack the uninsured motorist coverage on the liability coverage of one policy for the benefit of class II insureds....

...Although this assumption is reasonable, there is enough ambiguity in the 1989 amendment to warrant an inspection of the legislative history. IV. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY To fully understand the intent behind the 1989 amendment, one must delve into the lengthy legislative history of section 627.727....

...he tortfeasor's liability insurance coverage and the claimant's underinsured motorist coverage. In the legislature, these difficulties have been compounded by the pressures of competing interest groups. A review of the legislative history concerning section 627.727 makes it clear that in 1989, the legislature was attempting to solve problems that had not been adequately resolved in prior legislation....

...1st DCA 1988) (allowing coverage for both tortfeasors), review dismissed, 542 So.2d 989 (Fla. 1989). These controversies created conflict among the district courts of appeal, and also resulted in frequent legislative amendments. The amendments sometimes altered the description of coverage in section 627.727(1) and at other times changed the definition of "uninsured motor vehicle" in subsection (3). [6] It is fair to suggest that the amendments did not always achieve the goals intended by the legislature — resulting in more amendments. In 1984, the legislature amended section 627.727(1) to provide that benefits paid under the tortfeasor's bodily injury liability coverage were a setoff from damages, rather than from the claimant's underinsured motorist coverage....

...ed. Ray v. Earl, 277 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 280 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1973). When USAA pays an underinsured motorist claim involving a solvent tortfeasor, it typically receives subrogation rights from its insured against the tortfeasor. See § 627.727(6), Fla....

...e force when applied to class II insureds who have greater protection under the family's liability coverage, and also have the option of purchasing adequate uninsured motorist coverage on their own family auto insurance policy. The interpretation of section 627.727 in Warren creates statutory requirements never disclosed to the insurance carriers or to the families who have purchased the coverage....

...Thus, the named insured who had paid for liability coverage to protect permissive users and had also paid for uninsured motorist coverage received no benefits. The legislature quickly rectified this situation in chapter 92-318, Laws of Florida, by adding section 627.727(3)(c)....

...On June 4, 2001, Ferreiro filed a second amended class action complaint [1] against *376 Philadelphia seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that Ferreiro and other similarly situated individuals are entitled to uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage pursuant to section 627.727(2), Florida Statute (1997), [2] and (2) damages resulting from her injuries....

...The parties dispute whether Ferreiro has standing to bring a class action against Philadelphia for failing to offer such coverage. This Court, in Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 816 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), held that Philadelphia was required by section 627.727(2) to inform Ferreiro that uninsured motorist coverage was available....

...fined as: All individuals who purchased [excess policies] from Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company in the State of Florida prior to April 1, 2003, and all individuals or entities qualifying as either Class I or Class II insureds, pursuant to ß 627.727 Fla....

...or principally garaged in Florida, as well as occupants of said vehicles, and who have sustained damages in the past five years as a result of the alleged negligence of an uninsured/underinsured motorist while an occupant of said rental vehicle. [2] Section 627.727(2) provides, in pertinent part, that: [A]n insurer issuing [an excess policy] shall make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured, limits [of uninsured motorist coverage] up to the bodily injury liability limits contained in such policy or $1 million, whichever is less. ß 627.727(2), Fla....

...derinsured auto. Uninsured vehicle (motorist) coverage is for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury resulting therefrom. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...The purpose of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in Florida is to place the insured motorist in the same position with regard to liability insurance when he is injured by an uninsured motorist as the insured motorist would have been in if the uninsured motorist had obtained liability insurance. To that end, section 627.727 confines itself to "damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles"....

...ied therein because of insolvency; or "(b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under uninsured motorist's coverage applicable to the injured person." Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977) The plaintiff insurer relies for reversal upon an interpretation of section (1), above quoted, to provide that where one of two joint tort-feasors has liability insurance in the same amount as the liability li...

...We have for review the following question certified to this Court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Strochak v. Federal Insurance Co., 109 F.3d 717 (11th Cir.1997): WHETHER AN EXCESS CARRIER HAS A DUTY TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE § 627.727(2) TO AN INSURED UNDER AN EXISTING POLICY ON VEHICLES WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN REGISTERED OR PRINCIPALLY GARAGED IN FLORIDA WHENEVER ANY VEHICLE, COVERED OR SUBSEQUENTLY ADDED, FIRST BECOMES REGISTERED OR PRINCIPALLY GARAGED IN FLORIDA. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(6), Fla. Const. We restate the certified question to conform to the plain language of section *454 627.727(2), which applies to policies "delivered or issued for delivery" in Florida: Whether an excess carrier has a duty to make available the uninsured motorists (UM) coverage required by section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), to an insured under an existing policy on vehicles which had never been registered or principally garaged in Florida when any vehicle, covered or subsequently added, first becomes registered or princi...

...At the time of the accident, Strochak was the named insured under a "Masterpiece" personal excess liability policy with FIC. Strochak filed suit against FIC seeking excess uninsured motorists benefits in the amount of $5,000,000 under the excess policy claiming entitlement under Florida Statute § 627.727(2) which requires insurers of excess policies to "make available as part of the application for such policy" excess uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to the liability limits of the excess policy.......

...and was in effect at the time of the accident. Under these circumstances, we must presume that the parties to this contract bargained for, or at least expected, Florida law to apply. See Sturiano, 523 So.2d at 1130. The Court of Appeals asks whether section 627.727(2) requires insurers of excess policies to offer excess UM coverage to their insureds when a vehicle, covered or subsequently added, first becomes registered or principally garaged in Florida. FIC argues against such a requirement based on the plain language of section 627.727(2), which requires an insurer issuing an excess policy to make excess UM benefits available only as part of the application for such policy and thereafter only at the written request of the insured: [3] The limits set forth in this su...

...insured motor vehicle. However, an insurer issuing such a policy shall make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured, limits up to the bodily injury liability limits contained in such a policy. § 627.727(2), Fla....

...ts of the 1990 Masterpiece excess policy. I concur for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion that Florida law applies. I write to state my view that the majority's answer to the restated question is supported by the historical development of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). In 1976, section 627.727 was amended to add subdivision (2): The limits of uninsured motorist coverage shall be not less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the named insured or such lower limit complying with the company's ratin...

...This amendment expressly clarified that limits of liability for uninsured motorist coverage were to be not less than the limits of liability for bodily injury liability insurance unless there was an affirmative selection by the named insured. In construing section 627.727, primary liability insurance policies and excess liability policies were treated the same in respect to the required uninsured motorist coverage....

...[6] The statute further provided that, once rejected, UM coverage in the same limits as liability limits was not required in a renewal policy unless the named insured requested such uninsured motorist coverage in writing for the renewal policy. In 1984, section 627.727 was amended in subdivisions (1) and (2)....

...Therefore, at that time the two conditions of the statute were met: the policy was delivered in Florida, and the policy provided motor vehicle liability coverage for a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in Florida. GRIMES, Senior Justice, dissenting. That portion of section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), which requires uninsured *458 motorist coverage to be offered in an excess liability policy, states: However, an insurer issuing such a policy shall make available as a part of the application for suc...

...o affirmatively require the excess liability carrier to make a new offer of uninsured motorist coverage. [8] I believe the majority has confused the obligation of the insurance carrier which provides excess coverage with that of the primary carrier. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), which is applicable to primary liability policies, provided in pertinent part: (1) No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or iss...

...rotection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom. (Emphasis added.) However, section 627.727(2), which pertains to excess liability policies, states in part: The limits set forth in this subsection, and the provisions of subsection (1) which require uninsured motorist coverage to be provided in every motor vehicle policy deli...

...Moreover, by the time of the accident involved in this case, the Florida registration for the 1984 Lincoln had expired and Federal had been notified that Ms. Strochak's mailing address for the excess policy had been changed back to New Jersey. Under section 627.727(2), the obligation to "make available" excess uninsured motorist coverage arises only (1) at the time of the application for the policy or (2) when requested in writing by the named insured....

...*1212 Steven Billing of Hainline & Billing, P.A., and Nancy Little Hoffmann of Nancy Little Hoffmann, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Dewey A.F. Ries, Fort Lauderdale, and Joel Berman, Plantation, for appellee. HERSEY, Judge. This appeal presents two questions of statutory interpretation involving Section 627.727(1) Florida Statutes, pertaining to Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage....

...motorist coverage, requests such coverage in writing, the coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy when the named insured had rejected the coverage in connection with a policy previously issued to him by the same insurer. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...Another question on appeal is whether appellant is entitled to setoff against the available uninsured motorist entitlement that amount of workers' compensation insurance actually paid to appellee or whether the present value of future payments may also be included in the total to be set off. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.) provides in pertinent part: The coverage provided under this section shall be excess over, but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured under, any workmen's compensation law, personal...

...he resolution of this issue. It is our view that this issue is appropriately put to rest by the rationale in Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Lang, 387 So.2d 976, 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), in which the court, discussing "benefits available" under Section 627.727(1), stated: We can find no authority for appellee's contention that only benefits "actually received" by the insured can be applied as an offset against his uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. There is nothing in the statute or elsewhere suggesting that the word "available" in Section 627.727(1) was not used intentionally....

...*1215 There is little to distinguish an entitlement to future damages under a tortfeasor's liability insurance policy from future benefits to be received from workers' compensation insurance in the context of this legal issue. Although not raised by either party, we note that Section 627.727(1) was amended in 1979 to include the following sentence "Only the underinsured motorist's automobile liability insurance shall be set off against underinsured motorist coverage." This language precludes a setoff for workers' compensation benefits....

...ctment would be an unconstitutional impairment of contract. Carter v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 377 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). On the other hand, the Fifth District determined that the 1979 statute applied retroactively and interpreted Section 627.727(1) as it existed prior to the 1979 change to harmonize with the amended statute....

...Subsequent to the above settlement, a claim was presented against appellee under the uninsured motorist provision of appellants' policy. This claim was rejected by appellee upon the grounds that, pursuant to the applicable statute in force at the time of the issuance of the policy, Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (effective January 1, 1972), appellants were not automatically entitled to uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to their liability limits, which was $100,000/$300,000....

...These changes included, inter alia, adding his newly licensed teenage daughter to the policy and extending coverage to the legal limits. Prior to this request, Mr. Riccio's insurance provided coverage in the following amounts: $100,000/$300,000 liability and $10,000/$20,000 uninsured motorist. Pursuant to former Section 627.727(1), appellants argued that "full coverage," as requested, meant uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to liability coverage....

...d for arbitration. Prior to a hearing on the matter, appellee, in doubt as to its rights and obligations under its issued policy, filed for a declaratory decree. The complaint contained the same basic contention that is set forth above, to-wit: that Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, effective January 1, 1972, did not automatically entitle an insured to uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to the limits of liability coverage in the policy....

...coverage" from appellee's agent and was, in fact, told that both he and his daughter were so covered, i.e., $100,000/$300,000 liability and uninsured motorist coverage. Appellants' second contention challenges the directed verdict insofar as former Section 627.727 requires an insured named in the policy to specifically reject uninsured motorist coverage....

...With the above in mind, there seems little doubt that a jury could have concluded that appellant sought, and was led to believe, that he was "fully covered." Pursuant to the applicable statute governing the issuance of the policy, which is set forth below, "full coverage" would mean $100,000/$300,000 uninsured motorist. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (effective January 1, 1972) reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "(1) No automobile liability insurance, covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered o...

...Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, we feel duty bound to offer the following remarks. The record placed before us neither proves nor disproves appellants' contention concerning the deceased's failure to reject uninsured motorist coverage, as required by Section 627.727, Florida Statutes; Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v....

...Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the final judgment is reversed and remanded for new trial. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] The insurance policy issued by appellee provides that "uninsured motorist" coverage includes protection from "underinsured" vehicles. [2] Effective October 1, 1973, Section 627.727 was amended to provide for "uninsured motorist" coverage in amounts "not less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the named insured" unless rejected by the insured.

...purchased. Under this holding, Carbonell would be entitled to utilize the uninsured motorist coverage purchased on his covered vehicles for damages resulting from the accident in his uncovered vehicle. However, after Mullis, the legislature amended section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1989), to allow insurers to offer limitations on the coverage provided by uninsured motorist coverage if certain statutorily mandated notice requirements are met. Specifically, subsection (9)(d) of section 627.727 states: The uninsured motorist coverage provided by the policy does not apply to the named insured or family members residing in his household who are injured while occupying any vehicle owned by such insureds for which uninsured motorist coverage was not purchased. This limitation can only be binding, however, if the insurer informs the named insured on a form approved by the Department of Insurance and if the insured knowingly accepts the coverage limitations. § 627.727. [1] In their complaint the Carbonells claimed they did not knowingly accept a limitation of their uninsured motorist coverage as section 627.727 requires....

...on a form approved by the department [of the Florida Insurance Commissioner], of the [uninsured motorist coverage] limitations imposed... . If this form is signed by a named insured ..., it shall be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing acceptance of such limitations." § 627.727, Fla....

...phasis supplied] The trial court ruled that the emphasized language, which places no limitation as to the time within which the tortfeasor's insurer must become insolvent, constitutes a statutorily authorized expansion of the UM coverage required by Section 627.727(3), Florida Statutes (1973) [1] which provides: An insurer's insolvency protection shall be applicable only to accidents occurring during a policy period in which its insured's uninsured motorist coverage is in effect when the liabili...

...denied, 291 So.2d 204 (Fla. 1974); compare Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Mirth, 333 So.2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The judgment under review, which embodies this conclusion, [2] is therefore Affirmed. NOTES [1] This subsection has been renumbered as 627.727( 4 ), Fla....

...ord was entitled to set off not only the amount Mrs. Lackore had received from the "underinsured" motorist but also the amounts Hartford had paid her in personal injury protection and medical payment benefits. On appeal, the district court held that section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), did not allow Hartford to set off the amounts Mrs. Lackore had received in personal injury protection and medical payment benefits. Section 627.727(1), requiring automobile liability insurance policies to provide uninsured motorist coverage, provided in relevant part: The coverage provided under this section shall be excess over, but shall not duplicate the benefits available to...

...Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 355 So.2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Moreno, 350 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Further ambiguity was created by our decision in Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 363 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1978), where we construed section 627.727 to allow an uninsured motorist carrier to set off the amount of liability benefits the insured received from an underinsured's carrier. Reasoning that there was no logical reason for distinguishing liability coverage from other types of coverage listed in section 627.727, several courts began holding that Dewberry authorized uninsured motorist carriers to set off the amount of benefits available to an insured from such other sources even when the insured's injuries exceeded the limits of the combined coverages....

...It can, however, set off the amount of benefits available to the insured which would reimburse the insured for the same damages. The purpose of allowing a set-off is to prevent duplication of benefits. Although not critical to our holding, the *1043 1979 amendment to section 627.727 supports our construction of the statute....

...Johnson, 392 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accordingly we approve the decision of the district court of appeal. It is so ordered. SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Mrs. Lackore argued that a recent amendment to section 627.727(1), chapter 79-241, section 2, Laws of Florida, had clarified the legislative intent regarding the extent to which insurers might set off benefits an insured has received from collateral sources....

...Appellant argues that the trial court's interpretation of the insurance policy is at odds with the state's public policy demanding protection of innocent and injured persons from the negligence of persons who operate motor vehicles without insurance or with inadequate insurance. We agree. The legislative purpose behind section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985), is to provide coverage to innocent parties....

...; 2. released the tort-feasor and her carrier, thus destroying New Hampshire's right of subrogation; 3. settled with McArdle within the 30 day period given by law to New Hampshire within which it can determine whether it will approve the settlement. Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes provides: (6) If an injured person or, in the case of death, the personal representative agrees to settle a claim with a liability insurer and its insured for the limits of liability, and such settlement would not...

...This contention has been squarely rejected by other courts which have considered it. In Abberton v. Colonial Penn Insurance Company, 421 So.2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), cert. denied, 430 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1983) the court said: The enactment of this section had no effect on section 627.727(1) which still provides that the coverage is over and above but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured....

...We accordingly hold that the enactment of subsection (6) did not change or affect appellants' right to settle for less than the limits available to them from the tort-feasor's liability insurance. 421 So.2d at 8. The court supported its conclusion by looking to the language of section 627.727(6) which recognizes the insurer's subrogation rights against the liability carrier, commenting that this right would not exist if settlement had to be for the full limits of liability coverage....

...[3] The jury trial on the issue of damages resulted in a final judgment in favor of the Coopers. The Coopers then filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (1977), which provides for fees where an insured is successful in suing to enforce his insurance contract. On the basis of section 627.727(8), Florida Statutes (1983), which Aetna argued has retrospective application, Aetna opposed an award of fees other than those relating to the parties' preliminary coverage dispute....

...l essentially one for the recovery of personal injury damages, and, accordingly, the Coopers were not entitled to prejudgment interest. Southeast Title & Insurance Co. v. Austin, 202 So.2d 179 (Fla. 1967). We do find that the court erred in applying section 627.727(8) retroactively, and in limiting attorney fees to $40,000....

...1986), the supreme court held that the right to attorney fees is a substantive right, as is the burden on the party responsible for paying the fee. The court also ruled that a statutory amendment is also substantive where it affects a substantive right and concomitant burden. Section 627.727(8) therefore cannot be retroactively applied to the Coopers' cause of action, which accrued in 1977, and the trial court should have awarded the Coopers the entire $120,000....

...This section shall not apply to reduce the coverage available by reason of insurance policies insuring different named insureds. Section 627.4132, Fla. Stat. (1977). Appellee argues that uninsured motorist coverage is applicable to persons, not vehicles. See Section 627.727(3)(b), Fla....

...We are unable to interpret this other than to provide for no coverage when the insured has no coverage on the vehicle involved in the accident. This does not transgress the policy controlling in Mullis, supra, and Tucker, supra . That policy was based on legislative enactment of the uninsured motorist statutes. Section 627.727, Fla....

...3d DCA 1990), based on conflict with Lipof v. Florida Power & Light Co., 558 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), approved, 596 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 1992). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, sec. 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The issues presented in this case are: 1) whether section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1989), [1] requires a self-insured automobile leasing company that provides its lessees compliance with the financial responsibility law to offer uninsured-motorist insurance coverage; and 2) whether the rental agreement drafted by the automobile leasing company for rental and insurance coverage was ambiguous on the coverage issue, thus precluding a summary judgment. We hold that section 627.727(1) does not require self-insured automobile leasing companies to offer uninsured motorist coverage to its lessees for leases that are less than one year in duration....

...Alida Avila, the decedent's widow and the personal representative of his estate, brought an action against Budget alleging entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits or, alternatively, that Budget sold liability insurance to the decedent without offering uninsured motorist coverage in violation of section 627.727(1)....

...lessor, as a self-insurer up to the first $100,000, is insulated from a duty to provide uninsured motorist coverage to its lessee by virtue of a rejection of such coverage with its excess carrier." Id. The first issue for resolution here is whether section 627.727(1) requires a self-insured automobile leasing company that provides its lessees compliance with section 324.031, Florida Statutes (1989), the Florida Financial Responsibility Law, to offer uninsured motorist coverage. [3] Section 627.727(1) states in pertinent part: (1) No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state ......

...When a motor vehicle is leased for a period of 1 year or longer and the lessor of such vehicle, by the terms of the lease contract, provides liability coverage on the leased vehicle, the lessee of such vehicle shall have the sole privilege to reject uninsured motorist coverage... . Section 627.727(1) requires that uninsured motorist coverage be offered in two instances: 1) when a motor vehicle liability insurance policy is issued; and 2) when a motor vehicle is leased for a period of 1 year or longer and the lessor of such vehi...

...contract, provides liability coverage on the leased vehicle. This Court recently addressed the issue of the duty to offer uninsured motorist coverage in Lipof v. Florida Power & Light, 596 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 1992). *366 In Lipof, this Court held that section 627.727 does not require an employer, who provides an employee compliance with section 324.031 through a surety bond, to offer the employee uninsured motorist coverage....

...ed to do business in this state." § 324.021(8), Fla. Stat. (1983). Because the employer in Lipof was not an insurance company, we concluded that the employment agreement did not fit within the definition of a "motor vehicle liability policy." Thus, section 627.727 did not impose a duty on the employer to offer uninsured motorist coverage....

...nstructive in this case. Budget provided Avila's compliance with section 324.031 through its status as a self-insurer. As in Lipof, providing compliance through self-insurance is not the same as issuing a "motor vehicle liability policy"; therefore, section 627.727 is not applicable. Nor does Budget's status as a self-insurer make it an "insurer" under the Florida Insurance Code. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Wilder, 546 So.2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 554 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1989). Thus, we find that section 627.727 does not impose a duty on self-insured automobile leasing companies to offer uninsured motorist coverage on leases that last less than a year. We also note that the legislature intended that lessors be required to offer uninsured motorist coverage only for leases longer than one year. Section 627.727(1) expressly states that when a vehicle is leased for a period longer than one year and the lessor agrees to provide liability coverage on the leased vehicle the lessee has the "sole privilege to reject uninsured motorist coverage." U...

...only lessors who provide liability coverage on vehicles leased over one year to offer uninsured motorist coverage necessarily excludes lessors of vehicles for less than one year from any duty to offer uninsured motorist coverage. Thus, we find that section 627.727(1) does not require that Budget offer uninsured motorist coverage on its leases for less than one year....

...Thus, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW and GRIMES, JJ., concur. BARKETT, C.J., and KOGAN, J., concur in result only. NOTES [1] The district court below based its opinion on section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1989). We note, however, that the record shows that Avila rented the automobile May 1984; thus the appropriate statute is section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...693 (1918), quoted in St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Co. v. Hamm, supra, at 1073. The foregoing rules are further buttressed by our supreme court's decision in Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Smith, 556 So.2d 393 *85 (Fla. 1990). Shelby Mutual involved construction of section 627.727(3), Florida Statutes (1985). In 1984, the Legislature amended section 627.727(1) to provide that uninsured motorist (UM) insurance coverage would be available to cover the difference between the total amount of liability insurance benefits available and the total damages sustained by the UM insured, up to the maximum amount of uninsured motorist coverage provided....

...provide that all uninsured motorist insurance would be excess UM coverage no matter how much liability insurance applied. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., supra, at 398 (Shaw, J., dissenting). It turned out, however, that the Legislature failed to amend section 627.727(3) which had for many years defined the term "uninsured motor vehicle" as an insured motor vehicle whose liability insurer has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist coverage....

...o respondent, holding that uninsured motorist coverage becomes applicable only when the uninsured policy limits exceed the policy limits of the tort-feasor. In Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1978), we had occasion to construe section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975), which reads in pertinent part that uninsured motorist coverage shall be excess over but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured under any workmen's compensation law, disability benefits la...

...The district court affirmed the denial of coverage reasoning that: since the use sought to be avoided by the carrier did not involve the highways, or public roads of the state, the exclusion clause at issue here is not void for public policy reasons. The policy behind section 627.727, Florida Statutes, is to provide *278 the insured motorist with at least the same amount of protection as would have been provided if the tort-feasor had complied with the financial responsibility law....

...is statutorily intended to provide the reciprocal or mutual equivalent of automobile liability coverage prescribed by the Financial Responsibility Law." 252 So.2d at 237-38. The Becraft court correctly applied our holding in Mullis to the case at hand. We agree that Section 627.727 provides an insured motorist with at least the same amount of protection as would have been provided if the tort-feasor had complied with the financial responsibility law. 501 So.2d at 1317, As noted in Mullis, "Section 627.0851 [predecessor to Section 627.727] established the public policy of this state to be that every insured is entitled to recover for the damages he or she would have been able to recover if the offending motorist had maintained a policy of liability insurance." 252 So.2d at 234....

...ubstitution of her name on the policy for that of her deceased husband in August, 1977, constituted the issuance of a new policy of automobile liability insurance and that a new offer and rejection of uninsured motorist coverage was then required by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), and that such coverage was not then offered to and rejected by appellant as a result of which uninsured motorist coverage under the policy was equal to the liability coverage....

...fe but after her husband's death was owned solely by the wife as the survivor of jointly held property, did not constitute a variation in the terms of the policy material enough to require the insurer to again offer uninsured motorist coverage under section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1981). AFFIRMED. COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] As contemplated by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...policy was issued on February 1, 1978. Therefore, we decline to reverse on this point. We turn now to Maxwell's contention that the endorsement adding the vehicle involved in the accident to the policy constitutes a new policy within the meaning of Section 627.727(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...new the UM offer, Maxwell relies on United States Fire Insurance Company v. Van Iderstyne, 347 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), which held that an insurance policy endorsement to add an additional automobile after the effective date of an amendment to Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1973) increasing coverage requirements for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage was a separate and severable contract so that the new statutory limits for coverage were applicable....

...ed has already knowingly rejected the extra coverage as to the policy itself? We answer this question in the negative, as did the trial judge, under the factual circumstances presented by this case. While we agree with Maxwell that the provisions of Section 627.727(1) and (2) require that the insurer "make an offer of uninsured motorist coverage to the insured in the amounts up to the bodily injury limits for each new insurance policy issued in the State," we do not agree that the addition of an...

...Van Iderstyne clearly states that an endorsement to an existing policy, requiring "additional coverage for [an] added car with the concomitant additional premium constituted a severable and separate contract ...", and as such it had to meet the provisions of Section 627.727(1)....

...ors theoretically remain constant. Yet, to the contrary, the addition of a vehicle to a fleet policy will expose the insured to a risk quantitatively different from the mere substitution of one vehicle for another. It is this increased risk to which Section 627.727(1) is addressed, requiring a knowing rejection of UM coverage as to limits less than those afforded for BI coverage....

...le was added to the policy to request UM coverage in the same amount as was available to him under his policy for BI liability, he nevertheless later knowingly rejected his right to claim any greater amount, and that rejection may, consistently with Section 627.727, be applied retroactively to the time the vehicle was added to the policy, thereby causing any additional insured to be bound by it....

...The court concluded that it did not believe that the legislature intended "to give an additional insured the right to accept or reject uninsured motorist coverage when he did not pay the premium or contract for the coverage." 539 P.2d at 903. Florida cases, in construing Section 627.727, have uniformly held that if the named insured rejects UM coverage at the inception *1057 of the policy period, the additional insured must be considered bound by such rejection....

...n postsuit. The court awarded Ms. Bassette costs as the *746 prevailing party in the litigation. Standard Fire did not appeal this judgment. Ms. Bassette timely moved to recover attorney's fees, asserting an entitlement under sections 627.428(1) and 627.727(8), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...finding that there was no evidence that Standard Fire had denied coverage. We focus on the issue of whether the dispute that culminated in a declaratory judgment was sufficient to entitle Ms. Bassette to attorney's fees under sections 627.428(1) and 627.727(8)....

...declaratory action nor appealed the trial court's judgment that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida Statutes, not the policy provisions, control the discovery in litigation in uninsured motorist cases. Standard Fire, however, relies on section 627.727(8), which states: "The provisions of s....

...r unless there is a dispute over whether the policy provides coverage for an uninsured motorist proven to be liable for the accident." Standard Fire characterizes the present litigation as a discovery dispute, not a dispute over coverage. In view of section 627.727(8), Ms....

...ee. McCORD, Judge. This is an appeal from a final order of the trial court dismissing the amended complaint of appellant. The sole question presented is whether or not the automobile owner's uninsured motor vehicle liability insurance coverage under Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is available to a bailee passenger in the automobile who is killed in an accident as the result of negligence of the vehicle's driver to whom the bailee has entrusted the car....

...st) is liable to appellant, and Henry's uninsured motor vehicle coverage on the vehicle inures to appellant's benefit. This contention presents a new and unusual twist to uninsured motor vehicle coverage. We do not agree with appellant's contention. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the uninsured motor vehicle coverage statute, prohibits the issuance of automobile liability insurance coverage "......

...cy. After rejection of her claim, she brought this suit against State Farm. Upon these undisputed facts, the court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of State Farm. Moeller's policy says nothing about underinsured motorist coverage. However, Section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1973), modified its provisions as follows: (2) For the purpose of this coverage, the term "uninsured motor vehicle" shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof: ........

...gislation and that the insured should not be deprived of the separate and distinct benefits of both coverages. Cf. Gillen v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, Supreme Court of Florida, 300 So.2d 3, opinion filed July 10, 1974. NOTES [1] Now numbered Section 627.727(1), F.S....

...The Moores signed a separate paragraph which specifically rejected uninsured motorist coverage in the following language: Rejection of Uninsured Motorist (Family Protection) The undersigned insured and the Bankers Insurance Company agree that in accordance with the provision of Florida Insurance Code, Section 627.727 part X of Chapter 627, which permits the insured named in the policy to reject the uninsured motorists (family protection) coverage, the undersigned insured does hereby reject such coverage, being the coverage provided for the protect...

...er." Lipof, 558 So.2d at 1067-1068. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for Florida Power on the basis that "[s]elf insurance is not considered a `policy' of insurance, *1007 therefore, the requirements in section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), are inapplicable to self-insurers." Id. at 1068. The issue presented in this case is whether Florida Power became Lipof's "insurer" through the employee vehicle agreement, thereby, creating a duty to offer uninsured motorist coverage as required by section 627.727....

...ty damage in addition to the fire and theft insurance. Based upon these benefits, Lipof concludes that the agreement is a "motor vehicle liability policy," and thus, Florida Power had a statutory duty to offer uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to section 627.727....

...insurance companies. Florida Power is not an insurance company authorized to do business in the state. Thus, the agreement cannot be characterized as a "motor vehicle liability policy" within the meaning of sections 324.021(8) or 324.031. Therefore, section 627.727, which requires uninsured motorist coverage for motor vehicle liability insurance policies, does not apply to Florida Power....

...ce with the Florida No Fault Law has all the "obligations and rights of an insurer under ss. 627.730-627.7405." As specified by the legislature, these specific obligations and rights do not include offering uninsured motorist coverage as required by section 627.727....

...960 for past lost earnings; $4,200 for future earnings; $1,536 for past pain and suffering; and $7,200 for future pain and suffering. Thereafter, Allstate filed a motion for a collateral source determination. It alleged that, under Florida Statutes, section 627.727(6)(c) (1993), it should receive a setoff of $100,000 (Ms....

...5th DCA 1981)(holding issues pertaining to insurance coverage are questions of law), our standard of review is de novo. Rittman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Allstate's appeal involves the interplay of the various provisions of section 627.727, which provides the following: (1) ......

...rty, regardless of the amount of underinsured motorist coverage. Nothing in this subsection, including any payment or credit under this subsection, reduces or affects the total amount of underinsured motorist coverage available to the injured party. § 627.727(1),(3)(b),(6)(a),(c), Fla.Stat....

...ve, but does not duplicate, the "benefits available" to an insured from, among other sources, the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle or any other person jointly or severally liable together with such owner or operator for the accident. § 627.727(1), Fla.Stat....

...Where settlement with an underinsured tortfeasor was unauthorized, subsection (6)(c), as amended, expressly gave the UM carrier a credit against the injured plaintiff's total damages in the amount of the limits of the underinsured tortfeasor's liability policy. § 627.727(6)(c), Fla.Stat....

...623 So.2d at 1185. It later clarified that set-off statutes apply only where there is common liability, as in the case of economic damages. Wells, 659 So.2d at 253. Fabre and Wells altered the application of the term "benefits available" as defined in section 627.727(1). See Yablon v. N. River Ins. Co., 654 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(recognizing that when the legislature enacted section 627.727(1), it did not contemplate the abrogation of joint and several liability with respect to noneconomic damages). Specifically, since tortfeasors now are not jointly and severally liable for all damages, what benefits are truly "available" to an insured under section 627.727(1) depends on the how the jury allocates the various tortfeasors' percentages of fault. See United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Phillips, 740 So.2d 1205, 1209 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1999)(explaining that under section 627.727(1) each source of "available" benefits entails a legally enforceable right to recover which arises upon the occurrence resulting in the insured's injury). However, under section 627.727(6)(c), when a plaintiff settles with an underinsured tortfeasor prior to the jury's verdict, the UM carrier is entitled to a credit against the plaintiff's total damages in the amount of the limits of that underinsured tortfeasor's li...

...indicate. Id. In all, statutes must be construed as to avoid an unreasonable or absurd result. City of Boca Raton v. Gidman, 440 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla.1983). Pursuant to these guidelines, and to avoid an absurd result, we believe that the credit in section 627.727(6)(c) applies only to those damages which could have been recovered from the settling tortfeasor had he or she remained a defendant in the trial....

...However, we reached a different result with respect to the noneconomic damages awarded. The maximum amount that Mrs. Rush could have recovered from Ms. Buchholz had she not settled with respect to these damages *1033 would have been $1,310.40, or 15% of the total award. In other words, and under section 627.727(1), the total benefits that Mrs....

...Buchholz, it did not attend the mediation at which settlement occurred and, thus, did not authorize the actual settlement that occurred. [3] For reasons not explained in the record, the final judgment omitted Mr. Aiello's liability as a tortfeasor. [4] The 1992 amendment to section 627.727(6) provided, (6)(a) If an injured person or, in the case of death, the personal representative agrees to settle a claim with a liability insurer and its insured, and such settlement would not fully satisfy the claim for personal injur...

...First, uninsured motorist coverage is statutorily required to be provided for all persons who are insured under a policy for basic liability coverage. (That principle from Mullis was derived from section 627.0851, Florida Statutes (1967), which provided for uninsured motorist coverage. That statute was renumbered as section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1981), which was in effect at the relevant times here....

...Beasley, the alleged negligent motorist carried $10,000 per person automobile liability coverage. White, who maintained three separate policies with State Farm on three separate vehicles, each with $10,000 uninsured motorist coverage, sought a declaratory judgment that he could "stack" his coverage. Fla. Stat. § 627.727, relating to uninsured motorist coverage was amended effective October 1, 1973, to provide in (2)(b) that an uninsured motorist now also includes one who maintains liability insurance, but whose insurer: "Has provided limits of bodily inju...

...M coverage in an amount equal to his liability coverage and that he was not notified on an annual basis what his options were with regards to UM coverage. Appellee moved for summary judgment on the basis that it owed no duty to appellant pursuant to section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), because it was appellant's employer and not an insurer or insurance company as recognized by sections 627.733 and 324.031, Florida Statutes (1983), and *1068 because of its status as a self-insurer....

...An individual self-insurer is not for most purposes an "insurer" under the Florida Insurance Code. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Wilder, 546 So.2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 554 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1989). Self-insurance is not considered a "policy" of insurance, therefore, the requirements in section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), are inapplicable to self-insurers....

...The deposition of Mrs. Wilson indicates that she in fact thought she was waiving hospital and medical payments, because *142 military personnel were entitled to free medical care. Uninsured motorist coverage is required by law and must be affirmatively rejected, Section 627.727, Florida Statutes....

...NOTES [1] For this reason, it is unnecessary to decide whether questions as to the effect of the policy's terms should be viewed as factual instead of legal. See generally Chino Electric, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 578 So.2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). [2] Section 627.727(9)(c), Florida Statutes (1993) provides: If the injured person is occupying a motor vehicle which is not owned by him or a family member residing with him, he is entitled to the highest limits of uninsured motorist coverage afforded for any one vehicle as to which he is a named insured or insured family member....

...D MOTORIST COVERAGE POSSESSED BY THE INJURED THIRD PERSON, CAN THE INJURED THIRD PERSON RECOVER UNDER HIS OWN UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY? We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and answer the question in the negative. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983) mandates (with some exceptions not relevant here) that uninsured motorist protection be provided in motor vehicle liability insurance policies delivered or issued in the State of Florida....

...The Fourth District correctly held that where the insured torfeasor has liability insurance with policy limits equal to or greater than those contained in the injured person's UM policy, resort may not be had to the injured party's own UM benefits. We hold that this result is mandated by the language of section 627.727(1), which states that resort to UM benefits "shall be over and above, but shall not duplicate, the benefits available to an insured" from any other person or organization jointly or severally liable with the uninsured motorist....

...er all bodily injury liability bonds or insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident have been exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements. We find that provision to be violative of the intent of the uninsured/underinsured statute, Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. BERANEK, J., and CROSS, SPENCER, C., and DAUKSCH, JAMES C., Jr., Associate Judges, concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977).

...It does not apply to bodily injury suffered while occupying a motor vehicle owned by you or a relative living in your household, but *1390 not insured for uninsured motorists coverage under this policy. The Phillipses acknowledge that, pursuant to section 627.727(9)(d), Florida Statutes, an insurer is able to limit UM coverage via exclusions such as the one contained in the instant policy, but only if the insurer obtains a knowing acceptance of such limited coverage from the insured....

...ured motorist coverage provided by the policy does not apply to the named insured or family members residing in his household who are injured while occupying any vehicle owned by such insureds for which uninsured motorist coverage was not purchased. Section 627.727(9)(d), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...and that such coverage is an alternative to coverage without such limitations. If this form is signed by a named insured, applicant, or lessee, it shall be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing acceptance of such limitations.... § 627.727(9), Fla. Stat. (1991). [3] Section 627.727(9)(d) creates a statutory exception to the Mullis rule invalidating UM coverage exclusions as to Class I insureds....

...UM coverage with endless exclusions. Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Fitzgibbon, 568 So.2d 113, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), approved, 583 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 1991). In the instant case, the Phillipses claim Nationwide did not satisfy the notice requirement of section 627.727(9)....

...Phillips of the limitation nor obtained a written rejection of full UM coverage. Herring v. Eiland, 81 So.2d 645 (Fla. 1955). Because the insurer failed to obtain a knowing rejection of the statutorily required UM limits, Nationwide cannot rely upon section 627.727(9)(d) to validate its otherwise invalid exclusion....

...NOTES [1] "Ever since its publication, the Mullis opinion has been the polestar in determining the extent to which the state requires uninsured motorist coverage to be provided." Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster, 567 So.2d 408, 411 (Fla. 1990). [2] Now renumbered as section 627.727. [3] In addition, an insurer wishing to offer this limited UM coverage must file with the department revised premium rates reflecting at least a 20 percent reduction in the UM premium as a result of the limited coverage. § 627.727(9), Fla....

...In its complaint for declaratory judgment, USF&G asserted that by reason of Gordon's settlement with Stephens and Allstate and the release of those parties, Gordon had waived any right to underinsured motorist benefits under his policy and the Uninsured Motorist Statute, Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...h Gordon had determined to be the full extent of his damages and did not constitute a waiver of any right to uninsured motorist benefits to which Gordon might be entitled under the terms and conditions of his insurance contract with USF&G. We agree. Section 627.727 pertains to uninsured vehicle coverage. Section 627.727(1) states that uninsured motor vehicle coverage is for "......

...." The Section further provides that such coverage "... shall be excess over, but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured ... under any automobile liability or automobile medical expense coverages; or from the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle... ." Section 627.727(2)(b) defines "uninsured motor vehicle" as including an insured motor vehicle when the insurer thereof: "Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under [his] uninsured motorist's coverage." There is nothing in Section 627.727 that indicates that the insured must exhaust all benefits available from other sources before being eligible to recover under his uninsured vehicle coverage....

...bility insurance carried by Stephens represented the amount which Gordon determined to be the full extent of his damages and constituted a waiver of any right he had to uninsured motorist benefits under his policy and the Uninsured Motorist Statute, Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...the proposed arbitration. For the reasons stated the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. NOTES [1] This comports with the statutory provision to such effect, § 627.727, subparagraphs (2) (a), and (3).

...rist coverage under the terms of the lease, Florida statutory law did not entitle Thiem to protection when he was not in the insured automobile at the time of the injury. Theim argues that Bell Brokerage was deprived of its right under Fla.Stat.Ann. § 627.727 as a long-term lessee to have the sole privilege to reject uninsured motorist coverage....

...Since 1975, Hertz has met its insurance obligations by qualifying under Florida law as a self-insurer. In Mattingly v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 363 So.2d 147 , 149 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978), cer t. denied, 370 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1979), a Florida District Court of Appeal held § 627.727 only gives insureds who are *1561 “named”, as opposed to “additional”, the right to reject uninsured motorist coverage....

...The lease agreement provided that Hertz would obtain insurance “protecting and naming [Bell] as additional assured.” Under this language Bell is an additional insured. Florida law clearly distinguishes between the rights of named and additional insureds under § 627.727....

...person. Hunt entered into a settlement agreement with State Farm concerning its pro rata share of the total uninsured motorist coverage. Hartford moved to dismiss the complaint and the motion was granted, the court finding in part: "Florida Statute 627.727 (1973) and the cases construing it allow for the stacking of multiple policies of uninsured motorist coverage which are in excess of the recovery obtained from a third party, but the cases construing the statute have not spoken to the facts o...

...we assume Hunt is a resident of the household and is an insured under both his mother's and stepfather's policies. This shield of protection encompasses him even when riding in another's vehicle. [1] Since Ch. 73-180, § 4, Laws of Florida, amended § 627.727, Florida Statutes, coverage has been provided for injured persons whose recovery from third party tortfeasors is less than the coverage limits under that injured person's uninsured motorist policy....

...As such, then he is covered under the provisions of James Sanders' policy with Hartford. Insofar as the alleged conflict between our opinion and our earlier opinion in Government Emp. Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 342 So.2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), which restricted the provisions of Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), so as to allow coverage only to the injured person who was by name insured, and did not include underinsured coverage of another person's policy of which the injured person happened to be the beneficiary, we refer to the order granting petition for rehearing in Main Ins....

...cumstances. This interpretation creates a class of vehicles exception to uninsured motorist vehicle coverage, which has been repeatedly condemned by the Florida courts in interpreting and enforcing the policy of Florida's Uninsured Motorist Statute. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1981), requires all insurers offering liability policies on cars registered or garaged in Florida to offer uninsured motorist vehicle coverage for the protection of persons injured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury... . Subsection 627.727(2)(a) mandates that the limits of uninsured motorist coverage be "not less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the named insured......

...ccident with respect to any person... ." Id. at 671. But the court also clearly stated that a provision attempting to exclude uninsured motorist protection to an insured because he was riding in a car owned by the insured or a family member violated section 627.727....

...tate Farm's policies on Curtin's vehicles other than the one involved in this accident. We reach this conclusion as a matter of interpretation of the language of the policies, and, secondarily, because this result is mandated by the public policy of section 627.727....

...DAUKSCH, J., concurs. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., dissents with opinion. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent for the reasons set out in my dissent in Boynton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 443 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). NOTES [1] § 627.727, Fla....

...However, the parties agree the Delaware Policy was executed in Florida and Florida law applies. 6 Because Florida law defines “uninsured motor vehicle” to include those which are “underinsured” (i.e., insured for less than the damages suffered by a person legally entitled to recover), see Fla. Stat. § 627.727(3)(b), we likewise discuss uninsured and underinsured scenarios under the common rubric of uninsured motorist coverage. 6 principally garaged” in Florida shall provide uninsured motorist...

...arising therefrom; provided, however, that the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable where any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage. Fla. Stat. § 627.0851(1) (1961). Section 627.0851 was later re-codified at Florida Statutes § 627.727....

...Owners Ins. Co. v. Prough, 463 So. 2d 1184, 1185-86 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985). Thus, the Florida appellate court in Prough concluded that an anti-stacking provision was “against public policy and [was] not enforceable.” Id. at 1186.7 C. Section 627.727 In 1987, the Florida legislature amended Florida Statutes § 627.727 (the successor to § 627.0851) to add a provision (subsection (9)) permitting insurers in some circumstances to prohibit UM coverage stacking. Subsection (1) of § 627.727 remains virtually the same as its predecessor, § 627.0851(1), construed 7 There were no choice-of-law issues in Prough; thus, the Florida court’s conclusion rested not upon the public policy exception to the lex loci c...

...l Florida public policy. See Roach, 945 So. 2d at 1165; Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 761 So. 2d 306, 311-12 (Fla. 2000). 12 by the Florida Supreme Court in Sellers and Gillen. Section 627.727(1) provides that: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured o...

...However, the coverage required under this section is not applicable when, or to the extent that, an insured named in the policy makes a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy. Fla. Stat. § 627.727(1) (emphasis added). However, the amendment added subsection 9 to § 627.727, which allows policies to prohibit stacking if the insurance company satisfies certain requirements: Insurers may offer policies of uninsured motorist coverage containing policy provisions, in language approved by the off...

...ions provided in this subsection shall file revised premium rates . . . [which] shall . . . reflect a reduction in the uninsured motorist coverage premium of at least 20 percent for policies with such limitations. . . . Fla. Stat. § 627.727(9)....

...filing of revised premium rates in order for an anti-stacking provision to be valid. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Douglas, 654 So. 2d 118, 120-21 (Fla. 1995). The parties agree that GEICO did not send notice to the Randos or satisfy the requirements of § 627.727(9)....

...cking policy is judicially created and protects residents of Florida who pay insurance premiums for UM coverage; (2) Florida’s pro-stacking public policy prohibits anti-stacking clauses in UM policies unless the notice and other requirements in § 627.727(9) are met; (3) Florida’s pro-stacking policy does not depend upon the satisfaction of the two conditions in Florida Statutes § 627.727(1) as to where the policy is delivered or the car garaged but depends only upon the payment of separate premiums by 14 Florida residents; (4) the Florida Supreme Court in Gillen applied Florida’s pro- stacking public policy to a New Hampshire insurance policy that was issued and delivered in New Hampshire even though it did not meet one of the conditions in § 627.727(1); and (5) the state where the policy is delivered and the state where the insureds reside are more important than the location of the vehicle, because under Florida law “uninsured motorist coverage is personal to an insured” and “does not attach to a specific vehicle.” Hines v....

...uninsured motorist under whatever conditions, locations, or circumstances any of such insureds happen to be in at the time.”). GEICO, on the other hand, contends that (1) Florida’s “pro-stacking doctrine was preempted in 1987 by the Legislature’s amendment to Section 627.727 adding subsection (9) to the uninsured motorist statute”; (2) the pre-1987 case law cited by the Randos is inapplicable insofar as it invalidates anti-stacking (i.e., “other insurance”) clauses on public policy grounds; (3) F...

...15 which it is based; (4) Florida’s pro-stacking policy extends only to policies that are “delivered or issued for delivery” in Florida with respect to vehicles that are “registered or principally garaged” in Florida as set forth in § 627.727(1); (5) the pro-stacking doctrines in Sellers and Gillen are no longer applicable to policies of uninsured motorist insurance that contain anti-stacking provisions; (6) other than those vehicles referenced in § 627.727(1), Florida has no public policy that disfavors anti-stacking provisions in insurance policies issued and delivered in Florida; and (7) the Randos fail to cite any post-1987 case law applying the pro- stacking doctrine. V....

...lly impairing the obligation of the parties to the insurance contract. See Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 106 (Fla.1996); Yamaha Parts Distrib., Inc. v. Ehrman, 316 So.2d 557 (Fla.1975). We are unable to discern which version of section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes, applies to this case....

...utomobile medical expense coverages; or from the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle or any other person or organization jointly or severally liable together with such owner or operator for the accident as is provided by Florida Statute Section 627.727(1) F.S.A." We are uncertain whether the trial court intended the appellant to have a right of set off for any other third party benefits received....

...Hence, if the tortfeasor were insured to the same extent as the claimant, the tortfeasor's insurance carrier would not be entitled to a set-off for any benefits, workmen's compensation or otherwise, which the insured plaintiff was entitled to. However, this theory is modified by the clear statutory language of Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977), which in pertinent part provides: "The coverage provided under this section (uninsured motorist coverage) shall be excess over, but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured under any workmen's compensation law ......

...y appellee. With the foregoing clarification the appellee's petition for rehearing is denied. DAUKSCH and MOORE, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The accident in question occurred in 1975, thus Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976), is not applicable. [2] Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975).

...Co. v. Krawzak, 675 So.2d 115 (Fla.1996), does not require revelation of the exact nature of the insurance coverage implicated by the appearance of the plaintiffs' carrier in the lawsuit. In Krawzak, this Court indicated that in actions pursuant to section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991) [1] , it is appropriate to tell the jury of the presence of an uninsured motorist (UM) carrier which has been properly joined in the action against the tortfeasor....

...Peralta, 724 So.2d 1188 (Fla.1999), in deciding that the trial court is obligated to specifically identify GEICO as an underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier. However, Krawzak and Medina specifically state that those decisions are applicable only when a lawsuit is brought pursuant to section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991) (hereinafter the 1991 statute). In the case before us, GEICO was not sued and joined pursuant to the 1991 statute, but rather, the 1995 version of section 627.727(6) would have been applicable to this 1996 accident....

...hen properly sued and joined in an action against a tortfeasor pursuant to the 1991 statute. See Krawzak, 675 So.2d at 116. This Court emphasized that the UIM carrier's joinder was pursuant to the 1991 statute. See id. at 117 ("[I]n actions to which section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991), is applicable, it is appropriate for a jury to be aware of the presence of a[UIM] insurer which has been properly joined in the action against the tortfeasor.")....

...I do not agree with the majority's assumption that GEICO's status as a party defendant makes our analysis in Krawzak applicable. As the majority points out, the Legislature rewrote much of the 1991 statute in 1992. See ch. 92-318, § 79, at 3149, Laws of Fla. The following language was removed from section 627.727(6) in 1992: "[T]he personal representative may file suit joining the liability insurer's insured and the underinsured motorist insurer to resolve their respective liabilities for any damages to be awarded." § 627.727(6), Fla....

...exercise of discretion. HARDING, J., concurs in part. HARDING, J., dissenting. I dissent and would discharge jurisdiction in this case as improvidently granted. I do not believe the cases in question are in conflict. WELLS, C.J., concurs. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes, was substantially changed in 1992 and no longer provides the authority for joinder of the uninsured/underinsured carrier in the same action with the tortfeasor. See, e.g., Young v. Ganese Dharamdass, 695 So.2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). [2] We recognize that Geico was not made a party in this case pursuant to section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991); however, the parties agree that Geico was properly named as a defendant....

...Ellsworth v. Insurance Company of North America, 508 So.2d 395, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 252 So.2d 229, 233-234 (Fla.1971), the court instructed: The public policy of the uninsured motorist statute [now § 627.727(1)] is to provide uniform and specific insurance benefits to members of the public to cover damages for bodily injury caused by the negligence of insolvent or uninsured motorists and such statutorily fixed and prescribed protection is not...

...finding on the time spent on that issue was totally arbitrary. The trial court correctly determined that attorneys' fees were awardable only on the coverage issue. See Moore v. Allstate, 570 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1990), wherein the supreme court held that section 627.727(8) limits the fee awardable under section 627.428(1) to the issue of coverage, explaining that the uninsured motorist provisions of section 627.727 were intended to place the injured party in the same position as he would have been had the tortfeasors been insured, and that 627.727(8) accomplishes this purpose by directing that the insurer pay attorney's fees only for the coverage issue when the insured prevails....

...The deceased owned the tractor-trailer but was operating it on behalf of his employer, Unit Transportation. The policy in question was issued by appellant *799 to Unit Transportation and provides coverage to the deceased as an employee of Unit Transportation. It contains uninsured motorist provisions as required by section 627.727, Florida Statutes....

...ons: (1) Under Florida law, in order to recover uninsured motorist benefits from an insurer, the limits of bodily injury liability protection provided by the policy must be greater than the limits provided by the carrier for the alleged tort-feasor. Section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes....

...After a hearing, the court denied appellant's motion but determined that it would consider appellees' counter-complaint as an application for an order compelling arbitration pursuant to section 682.03, and granted that application. Appellees assert that pursuant to section 627.727(1), as amended in 1984, [1] all uninsured motorist coverage is excess coverage, with no setoff for the tort-feasor's coverage. We disagree with appellees' application of that amendment to this case. The present wording of subsections 627.727(1) and (3), has not changed the fact that section 627.727 is applicable only to uninsured motorist situations, and the definition of an uninsured motorist did not change with the 1984 amendment....

...3d DCA 1979); and *800 Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Company, 162 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on appellant's declaratory action. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ERVIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] As amended, section 627.727(1) now provides, in part: The amount of coverage available under this section shall not be reduced by a setoff against any coverage, including liability insurance.

...See Strochak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 109 F.3d 717, 719-20 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (discussing the conflict between Florida common law choice of law rule in contracts for automobile insurance and the specific choice of law provision contained in Fla. Stat. § 627.727, which requires insurance policies to provide excess uninsured motorist coverage, and applying the statutory choice of law provision)....

...Between August 2007 and June 2008, Cadle had ten facet or nerve blocks, which required anesthesia. None effectively managed her pain. Cadle had 1 Under Florida law and applicable in this case, “uninsured motorist” encompasses “underinsured motorist.” Fla. Stat. § 627.727(3)(b) (“[T]he term ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ shall ....

...be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof [h]as provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the total damages sustained by the person legally entitled to recover damages.”). Section 627.727(3) “sets forth the circumstances where an insured motor vehicle will be considered ‘uninsured,’ such as when the vehicle is underinsured because the ‘liability insurer’ provided limits of liability lower than the damages sustained.” Young v. Progressive Se. Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 80, 85 (Fla. 2000) (citing Fla. Stat. § 627.727(3)(b)). 2  Case: 15-11283 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 3 of 27 a pre-existing-neck injury that had required surgery in France in 1989, 2 but she had been doin...

...s. On July 11, 2008, GEICO offered $1,000 to settle Cadle’s claim and noted “[t]here was no final evaluation provided in your demand giving any permanency to your client, which leaves a question regarding threshold breach [of Florida Statutes § 627.727(7)].” Pl.’s Tr....

...settlement offer. In a letter dated November 17, 2008, the GEICO adjuster again noted “there was no final evaluation report submitted in the [June 11, 2008, $75,000] demand giving any permanency for Ms. Cadle, which leaves a questionable threshold breach [of § 627.727(7)].” Pl.’s Tr....

...GEICO’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. GEICO rested without calling any witnesses, because its witnesses had testified in Cadle’s case. GEICO had requested a jury instruction on an insured’s burden of proof to recover noneconomic damages in a UM claim under § 627.727(7)....

...The judge granted GEICO’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Judgment was entered on February 26, 2015; Cadle timely appealed. We review whether judgment as a matter of law correctly was entered for GEICO, when Cadle failed to establish permanent injury under § 627.727(7) for noneconomic damages within the cure period. 5 GEICO did engage a radiologist, Dr....

...insurer to show why it did not respond.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Importantly, in both first- and third-party bad faith actions, an element of damages includes any amount in excess of the policy limits.” Id. at 1221 (citing Fla. Stat. § 627.727(10))....

...arbitration that the insurer’s denial was mistaken, there is no cause of action if the denial was in good faith. Id. 3. Permanent-Injury Requirement for Noneconomic Damages The Fridman court recognized § 627.727(10) “clearly and unambiguously reflects the legislative intent that the damages in section 624.155 bad faith actions shall include any amount in excess of the policy limits.” 9 185 So....

...nent injury “within a reasonable degree of medical probability,” the plaintiff can recover noneconomic damages related to his pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience for all of 9 Section 627.727(10) provides: The damages recoverable from an uninsured motorist carrier in an action brought under s....

...caused by a violation of a law of this state. The total amount of the claimant’s damages is recoverable whether caused by an insurer or by a third-party tortfeasor. Fridman, 185 So. 3d at 1221 (quoting Fla. Stat. § 627.727(10)). 21  Case: 15-11283 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 22 of 27 the injuries related to the accident....

...3d 1201, 1207 (Fla. 2011) (alteration in original) (emphasis added).10 Consequently, insureds seeking noneconomic benefits from their uninsured-motorist carrier, first must meet the permanent-injury requirement of § 627.737(2)(a)-(d). 11 “In view of section 627.727(7), it is clear that the statute 10 The interrelated Florida Statutes § 627.727(7) and § 627.737(2) state and define the permanency requirements for noneconomic damages: The legal liability of an uninsured motorist coverage insurer does not include damages in tort for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience unless the injury or disease is described in one or more of paragraphs (a)-(d) of s. 627.737(2). Fla. Stat. § 627.727(7). In any action of tort brought against the owner, registrant, operator, or occupant of a motor vehicle with respect to which security has been provided as required by ss....

...carring or disfigurement. (c) Significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement. (d) Death. Fla. Stat. § 627.737(2)(a)-(d). 11 The district judge instructed the jury on the permanent-injury requirement of § 627.727(7) for recovery of noneconomic damages: 22  Case: 15-11283 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 23 of 27 does not require an insurance carrier to provide uninsured mot...

...pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience unless the threshold requirements of section 627.737(2) have been met.” Dauksis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 623 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 1993).12 The Florida Supreme Court has explained the interrelationship of § 627.727(7) and § 627.737(2) regarding the medical proof required for a permanent injury resulting from an automobile accident: [T]he statute[s] require[] that the plaintiff establish the existence of a physical injury and prove that this injury is permanent....

...In such a situation, as was similarly noted in Sweet, it would be impossible to determine which of the three policies afforded coverage. We are of the opinion that all three policies must therefore be interpreted as providing medical payments coverage in the instant action. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. NOTES [1] § 627.727, Fla....

...A motion for a rehearing of the court's striking of Leaf's motion for attorney's fees was denied. Thereafter, the trial court entered a final judgment granting Leaf's petition to compel arbitration but striking Leaf's claim for attorney's fees. We disagree with State Farm's contention that section 627.727(8) governs in the instant case....

...r, 1980 — May 1981 term and all premiums were paid. After the accident State Farm contended the plaintiff had $15,000 limits under the policy written and delivered in Colorado. The plaintiff contended she was entitled to $100,000 limits pursuant to § 627.727 Fla....

...On the date of loss, the original Colorado policy was still in effect. The Florida insurance code uninsured motorist statute specifically, applies only to policies delivered or issued for delivery in Florida, therefore these statutes have no applicability in the instant case. See, Sections 627.401 and 627.727, Fla....

...he Colorado office out of frustration with Florida's inaction and broken promises hardly establishes that the policies issued on May 12, 1980, and November 12, 1980, which were never delivered, were not "issued for delivery" in Florida so as to make Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...4th DCA 1990). Appellant argues that the conditions imposed within its offer in the instant case are either authorized by statute or are so insubstantial that it will not affect the validity of the offer. Bridges v. Newton, 556 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Section 627.727(6) requires an injured plaintiff who has uninsured motorist coverage available to him to submit a written offer from the negligent third party to its carrier for acceptance if the plaintiff wishes to retain rights under its policy....

...ting an offer of judgment to the defendant. While plaintiff argues that the uninsured motorist carrier would not be under a statutory obligation to respond, we are unwilling on the record before us to say that such a procedure is unworkable, or that section 627.727(6) constitutes a specific variance to the statutory offer of judgment standard....

...any recovery, or, in the alternative, that the balance of the prior recovery of $10,000.00 after reduction for damages of $7,500.00 should also be available as a setoff against the cost judgment. The key issue in this case turns on interpretation of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1985), which provides in part: The coverage described under this section shall be over and above, but shall not duplicate, the benefits available to an insured under any workers' compensation law, personal injury...

...only had available a maximum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ($150,000.00) DOLLARS coverage for her damages. This figure was reached by deducting the FIFTY THOUSAND ($50,000.00) DOLLAR set-off received from Jones and Jackson, as allegedly required by Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977) from the TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND ($200,000.00) DOLLARS....

...t against Jackson and Jones, the tortfeasors. On April 15, 1977, upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial judge entered a final summary declaratory judgment, ordering, in pertinent part, as follows: "3. By the plain meaning of the terms of Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes, `The coverage provided under this section shall be excess over but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured under any ......

...The second issue we must determine is whether the trial court erred in ruling that appellee might be entitled to equitable distribution of a portion of the FIFTY THOUSAND ($50,000.00) DOLLAR setoff to cover costs and attorneys' fees. We begin our discussion with the first issue. We start with the applicable portion of Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), which provides that: "......

...State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 349 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). It is appellee's position that where, as here, damages far exceed the total amount of coverage available from both the tortfeasor's and the insured's carrier, there is then no possibility of a "duplication of benefits," as per Section 627.727(1)....

...Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island, 357 So.2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) and see Government Employees Insurance Company v. Graff, 327 So.2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Notwithstanding appellee's contention, we believe that the court erred in its ruling. We interpret Section 627.727(1) to provide for an insured's recovery from his own insurer pursuant to an uninsured/underinsured policy of automobile insurance, the full extent of his damages in excess of any tortfeasor recovery up to the limits of the insured's policy....

...Thus, the uninsured motorist carrier, State Farm, should have been allowed to assert this defense as well. The court distinguished Newton as applying only to a nonresident uninsured motorist but certified the possibility of conflict with that case. Uninsured motorist coverage is defined in section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987), which states in pertinent part: (1) No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state ......

...The legislative theory is that if every automobile has PIP coverage, injured motorists will be reimbursed by their own carriers for most of their economic damages regardless of fault, and negligence actions against third parties will be limited to the more serious cases. In view of section 627.727(7), it is clear that the statute does not require an insurance carrier to provide uninsured motorist coverage for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience unless the threshold requirements of section 627.737(2) have been met....

...Thus, the critical question in this case is whether the insurance carriers should be bound by the language of their contracts with the insureds, or whether they should be afforded the exemption from tort liability available under the provisions of sections 627.727(7) and 627.737(2), Florida Statutes....

...Thus, section 448.24(1)(b), interpreted in light of section 448.25(1), is a civil statute of a penal nature. Additionally, our prior interpretation of another civil statute supports this conclusion. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Laforet, 658 So.2d 55 (Fla.1995), we held that section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), was penal in nature notwithstanding the Legislature's implementing language, which stated that the purpose of the legislation was to "reaffirm existing legislative intent, and as such is remedial. " Id. at 60 (emphasis supplied). This Court reasoned that section 627.727(10) was penal in nature because this statute provided the insured with an additional $200,000 in statutory damages that were not previously available in a first-party bad-faith action. See id. at 61. Section 627.727(10) enabled a first-party insured to collect excess damages caused by an insurer's bad faith even though that bad faith only injured the third-party victim. See id. at 60. Similar to section 627.727(10), section 448.24(1)(b) enables the aggrieved party to collect a significantly greater amount of damages than the actual damages inflicted upon that party....

...Patterson moved for partial summary judgment to determine the amount of UM coverage available to her under her parents' policy. The court decided that Cincinnati had failed to properly notify the Pattersons of their UM coverage options, as required by Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...d 27 of the policy itself. Because the notice was not attached directly to the premium notice, incorporated in the premium notice, or in a separate sheet as a stuffer, [6] the trial court correctly concluded that Cincinnati had failed to comply with Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1987), [7] and that Ms....

...4th DCA 1986); Trezza v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 519 So.2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Alava v. Allstate Ins. Co., 497 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 508 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1987). [6] Hiers, 504 So.2d at 1384. [7] The pertinent provisions of section 627.727(1) state: (1) No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein......

...State Farm, however, points to a provision in its policy which states, "An uninsured motor vehicle does not include a land motor vehicle: *143 (1) insured under the liability coverage of this policy." Resolution of this case hinges on the application of the uninsured motorist statute, section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...McClure argues that the exclusionary language in the State Farm policy is in conflict with the statute and is void as against public policy because it limits the application of uninsured motorist coverage. We disagree. The applicable statutory provision is section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...ed motorist coverage. Here, McClure is attempting to claim both types of coverage under the same policy. The State Farm policy does not permit this, and as related to this case, we find no conflict between the exclusionary language of the policy and section 627.727(2)(b)....

...This appeal ensued. At oral argument of the case it was indicated that the instant case is a prelude to a bad faith action by Coucher against St. Paul for an amount predicated upon *490 the jury verdict below. [4] Such an action was created by a 1992 statute (section 627.727(10)), which greatly expanded the damages recoverable against an uninsured motorist carrier in a bad faith action....

...you or any "family member." [4] We also observe that St. Paul did not at any stage of the proceedings properly establish the applicability of the "other insurance" clause to the facts of this case. For example, there was no proof of compliance with section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1996), and no showing that the Allstate policy's UM coverage was "other similar insurance." See Nationwide Gen....

...On stipulated facts, the judgment on the pleadings was rendered against the insurer and in favor of the insured's position that the policy provided $100,000 of uninsured motorists coverage. The insurer appeals. We reverse. At the time the policy was issued, the pertinent statute, section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1979), provided that no liability policy would be issued without equal uninsured motorist coverage being provided....

...der an insurance policy issued to Ford by defendant Michigan Mutual Insurance Company ("Michigan Mutual"). See id. Appellants present the claim for insurance coverage and benefits under a theory that the insurance policy at issue did not comply with section 627.727 of the Florida *694 Statutes relating to uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage ("UM/UIM")....

...coverage is provided therein. . . . However, the coverage required under this section is not applicable when, or to the extent that, an insured named in the policy makes a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...As a result of this reformation, the district court entered final judgment for Michigan Mutual, reasoning that "[o]nce the contract has been reformed, no motor vehicle liability policy was issued with respect to retail lessees" and, therefore, the district court concluded that section 627.727 of the Florida Statutes and the requirements contained therein for "named insureds" had no application with respect to these claimants....

...r the reformed policy also fails. Post-reformation, *698 the appellants are neither "named insureds" nor occupants of "covered autos." Accordingly, the appellants have no relationship with the policy which would allow them to assert any rights under section 627.727 of the Florida Statutes....

...ctions, because "named insureds" are the only persons authorized under the UM/UIM statute to reject UM/UIM coverage or to accept UM/UIM coverage at lower limits. See, e.g., Kimbrell v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 420 So.2d 1086, 1087 (Fla. 1982) ("[S]ection 627.727(1) ....

...e given effect as written." Id. at 851. Adopting this reasoning, the district court below determined that appellants were likewise "named insureds" under the policy. As such, they would be entitled to UM/UIM coverage under the policy by operation of section 627.727 of the Florida Statutes because neither the appellants nor any other "named insured" under the policy were offered and either accepted or properly rejected the coverage. See § 627.727, Fla....

...the insured had signed an insurance application form stating that those higher limits were offered but he selected lower $10,000/$20,000 limits, and, second, the insured thereafter received in the mail a notification sent by the insurer pursuant to section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1982), in a form approved by the Florida Department of Insurance, informing him of his option to purchase uninsured motorist coverage in an amount up to his bodily injury coverage limits, and he had not exercised the option....

...rance in this case was purchased, such a rejection occurred later as a result of a form notification, sent to, and received by, the insured with a premium notice, telling of the insured's options as to uninsured motorist *426 coverage as required by section 627.727(1)....

...After having been provided with the notification the insured did not opt for higher uninsured motorist coverage. We agree with this argument. We conclude that the declaratory judgment was erroneous because it attributed no significant meaning or purpose to the requirement of section 627.727(1) that such notification be sent to the insured with a premium notice....

...We must, in construing the statutory requirement, attribute to it a rational and sensible meaning. See Wakulla County v. Davis, 395 So.2d 540, 543 (Fla. 1981). We perceive from the statute the obviously rational and sensible meaning that the notification in this case meant what it was required by section 627.727 to say, i.e., that the insured was given the option of purchasing uninsured motorist coverage with limits up to his bodily injury coverage limits....

...After not exercising the option, the insured should not be entitled to receive what he could have had if he had exercised the option. At the same time we recognize arguments to the contrary, as outlined below, most of which were made by the insured here. The Legislature, in requiring in section 627.727(1) that such notification of options as to uninsured motorist coverage be given with premium notices at least annually, did not specify any effect of an insurer having done so....

...Yet we believe that our reversal is correct, proper, and just. It appears to us sensible and rational to conclude that the Legislature, by intending, as we have found, that an insured be bound by his failure to exercise the option provided to him in the written notification required by section 627.727(1), intended to counterbalance the above-referenced heavy burden upon an insurer to obtain a knowing rejection of uninsured motorist coverage limits at the time the insurance was initially purchased....

...But that Eckert was a stronger case in favor of the insurer does not, in our view, detract from the correctness of our holding which is consistent with Eckert as to the effect of an insurer providing the notification provided for by statute. The 1984 amendment to section 627.727 which is quoted in footnote 1 of this opinion may be construed to deal with newly purchased automobile insurance policies....

...AL TO THE POLICY'S BODILY INJURY LIABILITY LIMITS, WHAT IS THE EFFECT, IF ANY, OF A SUBSEQUENT NOTIFICATION SENT BY THE INSURER TO THE INSURED WITH A PREMIUM NOTICE ADVISING THE INSURED OF HIS OPTIONS AS TO UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 627.727(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1982)? [4] Reversed. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. NOTES [1] The 1984 amendment to § 627.727, which came into effect after the facts of this case, includes the following provision: The rejection or selection of lower limits shall be made on a form approved by the Insurance Commissioner....

...slative intent which may not lead to what a court perceives to be a wise result. See, e.g., Pfeiffer v. City of Tampa, 470 So.2d at 17. We have obtained and examined copies of House and Senate Committee Staff Reports concerning the 1980 amendment to section 627.727 which added the requirement that a notification of an insured's uninsured motorist coverage options be sent with premium notices....

...against personal liability. This policy was obtained for the appellee by the administrator of the clinical laboratory and provided appellee with $5,000,000 of excess personal liability insurance and $25,000 excess uninsured motorist insurance. Under Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975), an automobile liability insurance policy must have provided uninsured motorist insurance in an amount not less than the limits of the liability insurance purchased by the insured for bodily injury, unless the insured selected lower limits....

...ower limit he was statutorily entitled to uninsured motorist coverage in the amount identical to the liability coverage, to wit: $5,000,000. We agree with the trial court's decision. Appellant presents two distinct arguments. First, it contends that Section 627.727 applies only to automobile liability insurance policies and the "personal and professional excess indemnity policy" is not an automobile liability insurance policy....

...The policy itself provided uninsured motorists coverage in the amount of $25,000 for each accident and required underlying, minimum primary limits of automobile liability coverage. We, therefore, hold that this was a policy providing automobile liability insurance activating the requirements of Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...It reached this decision by concluding that the accident was an "occurrence not covered by the underlying insurance." We agree with the trial court's determination that First State's failure to offer uninsured motorists' coverage equal to its excess liability coverage violated Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971)....

...1st DCA), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1976); Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Beaver, 355 So.2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). We cannot agree, however, with the trial court's determination of First State's bottom limit of liability, i.e., $10,000. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971), required First State to include uninsured motorist coverage in limits no less than the liability limits, unless rejected by the insured....

...ITUTION. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF: Appellant Rita Strochak appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment on her contract claim for excess uninsured motorist coverage based on Florida Statute § 627.727(2) (1990) 1 in favor of Appellee Federal Insurance Company (“FIC”)....

...At the time of the accident, Strochak was the named insured under a “Masterpiece” personal excess liability policy with FIC. Strochak filed suit against FIC seeking excess uninsured motorists benefits in the amount of $5,000,-000 under the excess policy claiming entitlement under Florida Statute § 627.727(2) which requires insurers of excess policies to “make available as a part of the application for such policy” excess uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to the liability limits of the excess policy....

...Under Florida choice of law rules, a contract for automobile insurance generally is interpreted according to the law of the state where the contract was made. Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So.2d 1126, 1129 (Fla.1988). However in spe *720 eifically applying § 627.727 Florida law applies....

...to terms in an agreement, they do so with the implied acknowledgment that the laws of that jurisdiction will control absent some provision to the contrary.” Sturiano, 523 So.2d at 1129 . In Amarnick, however, Florida’s uninsured motorist statute § 627.727 was directly implicated. In that case, the court reasoned that the purpose of § 627.727 was to protect “ ‘persons who are insured under a policy covering a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in Florida and who are impaired or damaged in Florida by motorists who are uninsured or underinsured and cannot thereby...

...1981)). The vehicle in Amamick was principally garaged in Florida, and notwithstanding that the policy was delivered in New York, the court held that Florida law applied and the insurer was required to provide the uninsured motorist coverage mandated by § 627.727....

...idenced by the Coverage Summary of the 1992 Masterpiece policy which listed Delray Beach, Florida, as the garage location. Thus, this ease appears to be controlled by Amamick and Florida law applies. 4 On appeal, Strochak argues that Florida Statute § 627.727(2) applies because Florida acquired an interest in 1990 when the Lincoln became “registered or principally garaged” in Florida and was added to the 1990 Masterpiece policy....

...3339 , 92 L.Ed.2d 743 (1986)). Thus we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court. IV. QUESTION TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT (1) WHETHER AN EXCESS CARRIER HAS A DUTY TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE § 627.727(2) TO AN INSURED UNDER AN EXISTING POLICY ON VEHICLES WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN REGISTERED OR PRINCIPALLY GA *721 RAGED IN FLORIDA WHENEVER ANY VEHICLE, COVERED OR SUBSEQUENTLY ADDED, FIRST BECOMES REGISTERED OR PRINCIPALLY GARAGED IN FLORIDA....

...Our particular phrasing of the question is not intended to limit the Florida Supreme Court’s inquiry. The entire record in this ease, together with copies of the briefs, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court of Florida. QUESTION CERTIFIED. 1 . Florida Statute § 627.727(2) provides, in relevant part: "The limits set forth in this subsection, and the provisions of subsection (1) which require uninsured motorist coverage to be provided in every motor vehicle policy delivered or issued for delivery in this s...

...icle. However, an insurer issuing such a policy shall make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured, limits up to the bodily injury liability limits contained , in such policy.” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 627.727(2) (West 1990)....

...as insured under that coverage. On the second issue, appellants contend that because appellee entered into a settlement agreement with the third party tort-feasor without the consent of appellants, which conduct violated both a policy provision and section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1978), such unauthorized settlement constituted prejudice as a matter of law and therefore voided the coverage, citing in support of that argument Lopez v....

...lity insurer thereof is unable to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured within the limits specified therein because of insolvency." (emphasis supplied) *238 The legislature amended the foregoing statute (now Florida Statute 627.727) effective October 1, 1973, to provide "under insured motorist coverage"....

...This is an appeal from a summary final judgment. We reverse, as there may be genuine issues of material fact, and remand. In Progressive American Insurance Company v. McKinnie, 460 So.2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), this court joined other Florida appellate courts in construing the provision of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes, to mean that where two tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for damages to a third person in an auto accident, although one tortfeasor is uninsured, if the other tortfeasor has liability insurance with po...

...red in ruling that appellee was entitled to recover underinsured motorist (UM) benefits from it on the theory that the automobile in which appellee, Charles Chandler, was injured qualified as an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle, as defined in Section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), [1] notwithstanding that the limits of coverage for both bodily injury liability (BIL) and UM were identical under the policy from which appellee sought recovery....

...Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The lower court denied Travelers' motion and granted Chandler's, holding that he was entitled to recover $60,000 in UM benefits from Travelers on the ground that the automobile in which he was injured was an uninsured motor vehicle, as defined in Section 627.727(3)(b), in that the BIL benefits furnished him were less than the limits of UM coverage, and Chandler's damages exceeded the limits of BIL coverage....

...either uninsured or underinsured. See Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. of Shelby, Ohio v. Smith, 556 So.2d 393, 396 (Fla. 1990) ("Unless there is an uninsured motor vehicle, there can be no UM coverage."). Nevertheless, we do not consider that the definition in section 627.727 controls the issue of Chandler's entitlement to UM benefits, because the 1986 endorsement to the policy provides its own definition of uninsured motor vehicle....

...Travelers also argues, however, that because another provision in the policy excludes the motor vehicle in question from *1339 the definition of an uninsured motor vehicle, [3] Chandler is disentitled to UM benefits. We cannot agree. UM coverage is required by section 627.727(1) to be provided to all persons who are insured under a policy for basic liability coverage....

...Co., 475 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (because policy exclusion for BIL to family member denied coverage to plaintiff, exclusion for insured car under UM coverage provision was also enforceable). AFFIRMED. BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(3)(b) defines an uninsured motor vehicle to include any insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer "[h]as provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under uninsured motorist's coverage applicable to the injured person." (Emphasis added.) [2] This definition is very similar to the recently amended definition of uninsured motor vehicle found in Section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...th premium charges showing which coverages apply." The declarations page of the policy both described the vehicle in which Chandler was injured and assigned premium charges for the various coverages. [4] We note that the legislature recently amended section 627.727 so as to allow insurers to offer policies containing certain limitations on UM coverage, provided the insurer satisfies certain notice requirements. See § 627.727(9), Fla....

...The 1973 amendment not being applicable to the Becker policy, that policy does not provide underinsured motorist coverage and the Beckers are precluded from recovery in this suit. Reversed with directions to enter judgment for appellant. BOARDMAN, Acting C.J. and RYDER, J., concur. NOTES [1] Currently § 627.727, Fla....

...Sherman of Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, Tutan, O'Hara & McCoy, Miami, for appellee. ANSTEAD, Judge. This is an appeal from an order determining the amount of insurance benefits the appellee insurance company was allowed to set-off from the arbitration award on appellant's uninsured motorist claim pursuant to Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...o establish that the arbitrators actually awarded appellant the amounts he requested for medical expenses and wage losses. He asserts that, absent an itemized award, it cannot be determined whether the arbitrators allowed his claims for these items. Section 627.727(1) provides: *973 The coverage provided under this section shall be excess over, but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured under, any workmen's compensation law, personal injury protection benefits, disability benef...

...not award damages for expenses already paid under other coverages. Absent a stipulation the insurer may have no alternative other than to bring a declaratory action and ask the court to supervise the arbitration and determine coverage in accord with Section 627.727(1). At the very least the insurer should establish at the arbitration hearing the benefits already paid under other coverages and be certain that the arbitrators are aware of the provision of Section 627.727(1). In the present case the arbitrators were specifically instructed to ignore the provisions of Section 627.727(1) so that it is possible, indeed probable, that some duplication of benefits may have been awarded....

...Jackson, individually and as personal representative of her husband's estate, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of the uninsured motorist coverage. She claimed that because there was no offer of uninsured motorist coverage by State Farm and no informed rejection thereof by Mr. Jackson, pursuant to section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1979), the court should declare that uninsured motorist coverage existed to the extent of the $100,000/$300,000 liability coverage....

...Spencer, 397 So.2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (insured denied rejecting uninsured motorist coverage); American Motorist Insurance Co. v. Weingarten, 355 So.2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (insured testified he was not offered uninsured motorist coverage). Section 627.727(1) provides that uninsured motorist coverage shall be afforded to insureds under a motor vehicle liability policy but that an insured under such a policy does not have statutorily required uninsured motorist coverage when that coverage has been rejected in writing by the insured....

...Weathers signed the waiver but it was Mr. Weathers who sustained injuries. In addition, the appellant contends that the Weathers decision should not be followed because it is incorrect since a wife is a "named insured" or an "insured named" as *326 contemplated by § 627.727, Fla....

...Florida has consistently required that the limits of UM coverage shall be not less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the named insured, unless the named insured selects lower limits or rejects the coverage altogether. § 627.727(2), Fla....

...Thus, the only reasonable interpretation of the undefined and unexplained use of the word "statutory" in the blank on the declarations page is that amount of coverage which an insurance company would have been statutorily obligated to provide under section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), based on the remainder of the application....

...The question on this appeal is whether a passenger in an automobile, who is injured by the negligence of a driver of another automobile, may "stack" his own uninsured motorist coverage with that of his host driver in order to declare the tortfeasor an "underinsured" driver, pursuant to Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...portance: Does the denial of uninsured motorist benefits under a family exclusion clause in an automobile insurance policy for an insured's widow who was injured in an automobile driven negligently by her deceased husband violate the requirements of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1987), to provide uninsured motorist coverage since she would not be barred by spousal immunity from obtaining a judgment against her husband's estate, and under the factual situation there is no possibility of a...

...usehold injured through the fault of another member of the household. In Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Co. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 387 So.2d 932 (Fla. 1980), we held that family exclusion clauses are valid, and neither Sturiano nor subsection 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1987), is a sufficient basis to overturn our recognition of the applicability of such exclusion under the facts presented here....

...We reverse on both points. Although appellee's decedent was noted on the policy as the sole operator of the insured vehicle, this did not make her a "named insured" for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage under the terms of the policy or under Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...be in 12-point bold type and ... state: `You are electing not to purchase certain valuable coverage which protects you and your family or you are purchasing uninsured motorist limits less than your bodily injury liability limits when you sign this form. Please read carefully.' " § 627.727(1), Fla.Stat....

...The dispositive issue in the case is whether appellant was obliged to offer appellee uninsured motorist coverage, and to obtain a written rejection from her, before it could issue the February 1991 renewal policy without uninsured motorist coverage. To resolve this issue, we look to section 627.727(1), Florida *289 Statutes (1991), which, to the extent relevant, reads: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect t...

...ess terms or its reasonable and obvious implications. To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power." American Bankers Life Assurance Co. of Florida v. Williams, 212 So.2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). The facts of this case, read in light of section 627.727(1), establish the following....

...statute mandates that judgment should have been entered in favor of appellant, rather than of appellee. While concededly dicta, language in American Fire & Indemnity Co. v. Spaulding, 442 So.2d 206 (Fla.1983), appears to support our conclusions that section 627.727(1) should be read as written and that, as a result, appellee and her children are not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits. In Spaulding, the district court of appeal had interpreted section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), as requiring an insurer to offer uninsured motorist coverage to an insured every time there was a "material" endorsement (change) to the policy, because such a change amounted to the issuance of a new, separate, policy. The supreme court rejected such a construction. In a footnote, it said: We note that the legislature amended § 627.727(1) in ch. 82-386, §§ 66 [sic], Laws of Fla. (1982), thereby eliminating any possibility that this section will again be interpreted as requiring an offer of uninsured motorist coverage with every "material" policy change. § 627.727(1) (Supp.1982) now reads in pertinent part: [T]he [uninsured motorist] coverage need not be provided in or supplemental *290 to any other policy which renews, extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy issued to him by the same insurer, when the named insured or lessee has rejected the coverage in connection with a policy previously issued to him by the same insurer. . . . . Id. at 208 n. 4. While this portion of section 627.727(1) has since been amended in some respects, those amendments do not appear significant for purposes of this analysis. Clearly, the supreme court was of the opinion that the 1982 amendments to section 627.727(1) would preclude in the future an interpretation of that section as requiring that uninsured motorist coverage again be offered to an insured, notwithstanding her previous rejection of such coverage, merely because of an intervening change in the policy, "material" or otherwise....

...Appellant contends that the circuit court should have entered judgment for it on its counterclaim, and that the circuit court should have ruled that the $10,000 award was for all items of damage legally recoverable by appellee under his uninsured motorist coverage, which by § 627.727 would include his medical bills, loss of earnings, and earning capacity for the past and future....

...Trans-Coastal Maintenance Co., 505 So.2d 459 (Fla.App.1987), rev. den. 515 So.2d 229 (Fla.1987), as well as East Coast Ins. Co. v. Cooper, 415 So.2d 1323 (Fla. App.1982). Consequently, with regard to a Florida UM provision required by the Florida statute (§ 627.727(1), Fla....

...ows: Under Florida choice of law rules, a contract for automobile insurance generally is interpreted according to the law of the state where the contract was made. Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So.2d 1126, 1129 (Fla.1988). However in specifically applying § 627.727 [Florida uninsured motorist statute] Florida law applies....

...of Hartford, Connecticut, supra, 643 So.2d at 1132; Aperm of Florida, Inc. v. Trans-Coastal Maintenance Co., supra, 505 So.2d at 461-62. In all events, Amarnick established, as the Eleventh Circuit recognized in Strochak v. Federal Ins. Co., supra, 109 F.3d at 719-20, that "in specifically applying § 627.727 Florida law applies." The holding in Amarnick is enough to resolve the choice of law issue in this case....

...ired *1317 for those vehicles (Doc. 31, p. 2). By operation of Florida law, the initial rejection extended to the renewal of the policy because Wausau did not receive a written request from Roberds to change its coverage ( id. at pp. 2-3; Fla. Stat. § 627.727(1))....

...We have considered Becraft's contentions regarding the validity of the State Farm exclusion and find that, since the use sought to be avoided by the carrier did not involve the highways, or public roads of the state, the exclusion clause at issue here is not void for public policy reasons. The policy behind section 627.727, Florida Statutes, is to provide the insured motorist with at least the same amount of protection as would have been provided if the tort-feasor had complied with the financial responsibility law....

...The court found that the insured was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage because the insured failed to comply with a policy provision requiring the insured to sue the owner or driver of the uninsured motor vehicle. We find that the policy provision is void against the public policy of the uninsured motorist statute, section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...2010) (the enforceability of a policy provision affecting uninsured motorist coverage is a pure question of law and, consequently, the standard of review is de novo). We agree with the third district that the provision at issue is void against the public policy of the uninsured motorist statute, section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...That statute provides, in pertinent part: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state . . . unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein. . . . § 627.727(1), Fla....

...UM carrier or the uninsured motorist. . . . Placing the burden upon the Insured by making it a contractual obligation benefits [the insurer], not the Insured. We, therefore, conclude that the provision is against the public policy of the UM statute, section 627.727, and therefore invalid....

...In our opinion, the proper answer to this question is no. For the same reasons we set forth in Arrieta v. Volkswagen Insurance Co., 343 So.2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), we believe that public policy, as indicated by the clear expression of legislative intent in Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975), prohibits an insurer from legally conditioning its obligation *392 to afford uninsured-underinsured motorist coverage upon its insured's first pursuing the third party tort-feasor to a settlement or judgment....

...NOTES [*] At the hearing below, the plaintiff contended that her UM carrier likely would refuse to execute the waiver of subrogation rights. By statute, if the UM carrier refuses permission for the proposed settlement, then the UM carrier must pay the plaintiff the amount of the settlement. § 627.727(6)(b), Fla....

...ment. The liability triggering mechanism in Carrazana was not the negligence of the insurance company in the manner it handled a renewal or issued a new policy, but rather the statutorily mandated duty imposed on insurance companies in this state by section 627.727(1) that the insured make a "knowing rejection of uninsured motorist coverage or a knowing choice of low limits." [3] The mechanism selected by the legislature to enforce this duty is to make insurance policies issued or renewed in vio...

...Based on the errors and omissions of the insurance agent as alleged in this case, [4] we do not think there is a sufficient basis to find a "covered claim" under Chapter 631. [5] AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] §§ 631.51(1), 631.54(3), Fla. Stat. (1983). [2] § 631.57(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1983). [3] § 627.727(1), Fla....

...njury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom. However, the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable when, or to the extent that, any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage. (Emphasis supplied.) § 627.727(1), Fla....

...[2] Section 768.28(15)(a) reads, in pertinent part: [t]he state and its agencies and subdivisions are authorized to be self-insured ... in anticipation of any claim, judgment, and claims bill which they may be liable to pay pursuant to this section. [3] We recognize, of course, the provisions of section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1993).

...tion. The insurance company appeals. The duty of an insurance company to make available uninsured motorist insurance with limits not less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the insured is based upon statute in Florida. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985), requires that such insurance be made available unless rejected by any named insured....

...miss raises only a pure question of law. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. v. Merchants Bonding Co., 707 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Second, Metropolitan argues that the trial court's order directly conflicts with the requirements set forth in section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (2004). Section 627.727(6)(a) [2] provides that if an injured *406 person is willing to accept a settlement offer from the alleged tortfeasor, but such settlement would not fully satisfy the personal injury claim so as to create a UM claim, the injured party must give written notice of the proposed settlement to his or her UM insurer....

...y insurer. Thereafter, upon final resolution of the underinsured motorist claim, the underinsured motorist insurer is entitled to seek subrogation against the underinsured motorist and the liability insurer for the amounts paid to the injured party. § 627.727(6)(b), Fla....

...However, nothing in subsection (6)(b) required Tepper to pursue his claim against Lucas if he was willing to forego seeking damages in excess of the sum of $25,000 offered by Lucas (but paid by Metropolitan) and the limits of his UM policy. The pre-1992 version of section 627.727(6) [3] required an injured party to *407 jointly sue the alleged tortfeasor and the UM carrier even when the UM carrier denied its insured permission to accept a settlement offer from the alleged tortfeasor. Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Krawzak, 675 So.2d 115, 117-118 (Fla.1996). However, the 1992 amendment to section 627.727(6) "substantially alter[ed] the landscape of uninsured motorist law." Hassen v....

...Co., 674 So.2d 106, 109 (Fla.1996). The language requiring the injured party to jointly sue the alleged tortfeasor and the UM carrier was removed from the statute. As explained by the Florida Supreme Court in Krawzak, albeit, in dicta: In 1992, the legislature amended section 627.727(6), and under the present statute, an action for UM coverage would solely be against the UM carrier....

...in excess of the sum of the limits of Lucas' liability policy and the limits of Tepper's UM policy. We do conclude, however, that the trial court erred in finding that Metropolitan could bring a third-party action against Lucas. The last sentence of section 627.727(6)(b) specifically provides that a UM insurer is entitled to seek subrogation against the alleged tortfeasor (and its liability insurer) "upon final resolution of the underinsured motorist claim." Based on this clear and unambiguous l...

...GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] In his complaint, Tepper alleged that he had made a demand to Metropolitan for arbitration of the UM claim but Metropolitan had elected, pursuant to the terms of its policy, to be joined with the tortfeasor in the subject action. [2] Section 627.727(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2004) provides: If an injured person or, in the case of death, the personal representative agrees to settle a claim with a liability insurer and its insured, and such settlement would not fully satisfy the cla...

...ithin the 30-day period, the injured party may proceed to execute a full release in favor of the underinsured motorist's liability insurer and its insured and finalize the proposed settlement without prejudice to any underinsured motorist claim. [3] Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991) provided: If an injured person or, in the case of death, the personal representative agrees to settle a claim with a liability insurer and its insured for the limits of liability, and such settlement would...

...e car even though the driver was not a relative and had no insurance or was underinsured. See State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Palacino, 562 So.2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Smith; Baker; Brixius. These holdings may violate the public policy of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1987), [2] since liability coverage is not available to the insured policyholder or insured and he or she is fully entitled to sue the negligent driver in those cases....

...9.030(a)(2)(B)(i). DOES THE DENIAL OF UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS UNDER A FAMILY EXCLUSION CLAUSE IN AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY FOR AN INSURED'S WIDOW WHO WAS INJURED IN AN AUTOMOBILE DRIVEN NEGLIGENTLY BY HER DECEASED HUSBAND VIOLATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 627.727(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987), TO PROVIDE UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE SINCE SHE WOULD NOT BE BARRED BY SPOUSAL IMMUNITY FROM OBTAINING A JUDGMENT AGAINST HER HUSBAND'S ESTATE, AND UNDER THE FACTUAL SITUATION THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF A...

...liability, medical payments, uninsured motor vehicle and physical damage coverages you chose apply... in the United States of America, its territories and possessions or Canada... ." Fischer argues that the omission of any territorial restriction in Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1981), the uninsured motorist statute, evinces the Legislature's intent that there be no such restriction in any insurance policy issued in Florida. He says that had the Legislature intended to tolerate territorial restrictions on uninsured motorist coverage, it would have explicitly placed such restrictions in Section 627.727, as it did elsewhere in other statutes regulating motor vehicle insurance, namely, the Financial Responsibility Law [1] and the personal injury protection provision of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act....

...dental bodily injury sustained outside this state, but within the United States of America or its territories or possessions or Canada, by the owner while occupying the owner's motor vehicle." (emphasis supplied). [3] The uninsured motorist statute, Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: "(1) No automobile liability insurance ......

...November 26, 1980. Robert V. Romani, of Farish, Farish & Romani, West Palm Beach, for appellants. Frank G. Cibula, Jr., and Toby A. Turbyfill of Law Office of Frank G. Cibula, Jr., West Palm Beach, for appellee. ANSTEAD, Judge. At issue is whether the provisions of Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977) operate to automatically reduce the policy limits of the appellant, Madeline Lackore's uninsured motorist coverage by the amount of the coverage for personal injury protection and medical payments benefits...

...ppellee. Prior to arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim, the trial court granted a request by appellee to reduce the available uninsured motorist coverage available from the appellee by the $6,000.00 of benefits paid under the other coverages. Section 627.727(1) provides: (1) ......

...1st DCA 1979) and possibly other cases cited therein. Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The appellant has also urged us to bottom our decision on a recent amendment to Section 627.727(1) which clarifies the legislature's intent as to set-offs of coverages in the same manner as our holding herein, but we do not believe it is necessary to do so....

...ON MOTION FOR REHEARING WARNER, C.J. We deny rehearing but withdraw our prior opinion and substitute the following in its place. In this appeal, the trial court determined that appellee could "stack" umbrella coverage on five vehicles because the statutory requirements of section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1997), were not met. We hold that where the insured does not pay additional premiums for additional vehicles, the judicial doctrine of stacking does not apply, and thus the requirements of section 627.727(9) do not apply....

...1 million for the umbrella. The Roths sought to stack the umbrella policy for their five vehicles, which would result in $4 million in available coverage. Both sides moved for summary judgment. After concluding that the umbrella policy stacked under section 627.727(9), the trial court granted appellees' motion, awarding the Roths $1.7 million, the remainder of the arbitration award, plus interest....

...Indeed, after the supreme court permitted stacking in Tucker, the Legislature reacted by enacting section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), which prohibited stacking of any coverage. However, in 1980 it was later amended to exempt uninsured motorist coverage, which is governed by section 627.727. See Ch. 80-364, § 1 at 1495, Laws of Fla. We must read the statutory provisions of section 627.727 with this judicial history in mind. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1997), requires uninsured motorist protection to be provided "with respect to any *1230 specifically insured or identified motor vehicle...." Section 627.727(2) sets the minimum limits of such insurance....

...After the stipulation and the order of dismissal were entered by the trial court, appellees filed a demand for arbitration against appellant seeking to recover benefits, in excess of the $15,000, under the uninsured motorist provision of their policy, pursuant to the "under-insured" provisions of Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...ant, even though they had received the policy limits of $15,000 from the tort-feasor's insurance company, because they had not executed any release and their policy limits exceeded those of the tort-feasor's policy. Appellees argue that, pursuant to Section 627.727(3), Florida Statutes (1975), the uninsured motorist provision of their policy applies *18 where such coverage limits exceed the bodily injury limits of a tort-feasor's policy. Assuming this to be true, appellees' argument is misplaced. Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), provides that: "(2) For the purpose of this coverage, the term `uninsured motor vehicle' shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle when t...

...e liability insurer thereof: * * * * * * (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist's coverage." [Emphasis added.] Although Section 627.727(3) may provide "under-insured" coverage to appellees under their policy with appellant, this Section, when read in conjunction with Section 627.727(2)(b), clearly makes such coverage subject to the other valid terms and conditions of the policy....

...son or organization. The insured, or with respect to Part B such person, shall execute and deliver instruments and papers, do whatever is necessary to secure such rights and shall do nothing after loss to prejudice such rights." We do not think that Section 627.727(3) abrogates either of these provisions of the policy....

...2d DCA 1987), this court held that a claimant was not entitled to both liability coverage and underinsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage under the same policy, where the policy does not permit that result. We found no conflict between the exclusionary language of the policy and section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), which applied to the accident involved in that case....

...16, 1987). There the claimant recovered liability benefits under a policy issued by Nationwide and then sought underinsured motorist benefits under the same policy, arguing that pursuant to the 1984 amendment of the uninsured motorist coverage statute, section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...instance."). Therefore, Pohlman is distinguishable on its facts and lends no weight to the Appellants' argument. The standard of review for summary judgment is de novo. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla.2000). Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1999) is controlling....

...not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy, or any other policy which renews, extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy with the same bodily injury liability limits when an insured or lessee had rejected the coverage. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...By definition, a substitution is an exchange of one thing for another thing of relatively equal value. By extension of that logic, the substitution of one vehicle for another under a policy of insurance is nothing more than a "change" which, by definition, does not require an offer of uninsured motorist coverage. See § 627.727(1), Fla....

...olicy amounts. Under the amended statute, the legislature is clear that increases in bodily injury liability coverage are the deciding factor in policy premium increases, not, as here, increases due to the cost of insuring a newer model vehicle. See § 627.727(1), Fla....

...By virtue of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, the Plaintiff is not legally entitled to recover tort damages from the operator of the vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger. The first question, whether an otherwise insured vehicle is "uninsured" within the context of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1985), where the policy does not cover the particular occurrence, was answered affirmatively by the supreme court in Allstate Ins....

...ase, or negligence at all. That factual question is clearly an issue for arbitration. [2] In summary we hold that (1) the police vehicle in which the plaintiff officer was a passenger when injured was an uninsured motor vehicle within the context of section 627.727(1), thus the injured employee was legally entitled to recover against his uninsured motorist policy; (2) the existence of workers' compensation coverage does not preclude an action by an uninsured motorist insurer, as subrogee of an i...

...Here the family car, which is defined in the policy as the insured motor vehicle, is the same vehicle which appellant, under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy, claims to be an uninsured motor vehicle. We find no merit in appellant's argument that this exclusion *880 conflicts with Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...ily injury liability limits of $100,000 per person, $300,000 per accident, with two vehicles listed on the policy susceptible of being stacked. The rationale of the final judgment is that Allstate failed to demonstrate compliance with its duty under section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes, to secure an informed rejection of U.M....

...The trial court erred in finding that Smith was covered under the AAIC policy. Accordingly, we reverse with directions that the trial court order that Smith return to AAIC the $10,000 payment mistakenly made to him. NOTES [1] We need not reach the issue raised by Smith's appeal, concerning the extent of coverage under section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983), since we find that Smith was not covered at all under the AAIC policy.

...In its answer, Shelby Mutual admitted issuing the motor vehicle insurance policy to Smith and admitted the other material allegations of the amended complaint. However, it asserted as an affirmative defense that Smith's accident did not involve an "uninsured motor vehicle" as defined in section 627.727(3), Florida Statutes, and therefore she was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage. In its counterclaim, Shelby Mutual sought declaratory relief determining that there was no uninsured motorist coverage for the subject accident, and it alleged that it was unsure of its rights under section 627.727, Florida Statutes, as amended in 1984, noting that there were no appellate opinions construing those amendments to the statute....

...Appellant Shelby Mutual contends the trial court erred in granting summary final judgment in favor of Smith as that, in effect, constituted an improper determination by the court that the tortfeasor's vehicle was an "uninsured motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 627.727(3), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...t Smith's vehicle had uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $25,000.00, it was improper for the trial court to conclude that the tortfeasor's vehicle met the statutory definition of "uninsured motor vehicle." As of 1984, sections 627.727(1), (2) and (3), Florida Statutes, provided: (1) No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or principall...

...vency; or (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under uninsured motorist's coverage applicable to the injured person. Prior to the 1984 amendments, section 627.727(1) allowed for the setoff of a tortfeasor's liability coverage against the injured party's underinsured motorist coverage; and section 627.727(2) required insurers to make available excess underinsured motorist coverage against which liability coverage could not be set off....

...The Florida *833 Legislature's 1984 amendments barred the setoff of liability coverage and eliminated the provision for excess underinsured motorist coverage. The amendment was made applicable to new and renewal policies with an effective date of October 1, 1984, or later. The Florida Legislature, however, did not amend section 627.727(3) — the language of which has been set forth above....

...Appellant places great reliance on the argument and example set forth by Attorney William C. Merritt in The Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education's Florida Automobile Insurance Law, (1985), wherein he states: The definition of "uninsured motor vehicle" or "underinsured motor vehicle" was not changed by the 1984 amendment. F.S. 627.727(3) continues to provide: For the purpose of this coverage, the term "uninsured motor vehicle" shall ......

...be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof: * * * * * * (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under uninsured motorist's coverage applicable to the injured person. It is true that F.S. 627.727(1) as amended clearly states that the amount of uninsured motorist coverage available to the insured "shall not be reduced by a setoff against any coverage, including liability insurance." By definition, however, there still must be an uninsured motorist claim. That is, uninsured motorist coverage must exceed the tortfeasor's liability coverage or there is no UM claim to begin with. See 627.727(3)....

...sely, if the liability coverage is $10,000 and the UM coverage is $20,000 then the full $20,000 is available without any setoff as long as the UM benefits claimed are "over and above, [and do] not duplicate" the liability insurance benefits payable. 627.727(1)....

...nsurance Law, it totally disregards the contrasting analyses of the same issue made by several coauthors of that publication — Louis K. Rosenbloum, Michael Maher and Herbert Hall, Jr. According to attorneys Maher and Hall: [T]he 1984 amendment to F.S. 627.727 essentially redefined the concept of "underinsured motorist." Historically, the statute's language concerning underinsured motorists has been interpreted to mean a motorist whose available liability coverage is less than the uninsured motorist limits of the injured party's policy. Yaden v. Hanover Insurance Co., 375 So.2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. den. 383 So.2d 1205. See 627.727(3)....

...The injured party, of course, is then free to take legal action to recover the tortfeasor's liability limits. Some companies are waiving arbitration and allowing suit. Id. at 186-87. Attorney Rosenbloum describes the problem created by the Florida Legislature's 1984 amendment as follows: In amending F.S. 627.727(1) and (2) without revising 627.727(3), the legislature created an ambiguity with respect to excess uninsured motorist coverage....

...If the insured has only $10,000 in UM coverage instead of $20,000, he should be able to recover the tortfeasor's liability coverage and his own UM coverage for a total of $20,000. This appears to be the intended result of the 1984 amendments. But the legislature failed to redefine "uninsured motor vehicle" in 627.727(3) correspondingly....

...A review of the Florida House of Representatives bill analysis for the 1984 amendments leads to the conclusion that the legislature intended for the insured to receive the entire $20,000 in the second example above. A reading of all of the 1984 amendments to F.S. 627.727 should lead to the same conclusion. While the courts should follow this more logical interpretation, the legislature should amend 627.727(3)(b) to eliminate any doubt or confusion....

...ld be available, in addition to the $10,000 liability insurance available from the other driver. The preface to House Bill 319, the legislative enactment relevant hereto, reads as follows: A bill to be entitled An act relating to insurance; amending s. 627.727, F.S., providing that uninsured motorist coverage is over and above any motor vehicle liability coverage; prohibiting setoffs; deleting the requirement that an insurer make available excess underinsured motor vehicle coverage; providing an effective date. (emphasis added). We conclude that the Legislature intended the 1984 amendment to section 627.727, Florida Statutes, to provide that all uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage be excess coverage and that it pay over and above the tortfeasor's liability coverage should said liability coverage be inadequate to fully compensate the injured insured. Although there is confusion regarding the proper application of section 627.727(3) given the enactment of the excess uninsured motorist concept, Smith accurately points out that the Florida Supreme Court has stated that "[i]t is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that legislative intent is the polestar...

...3rd DCA 1980) and Southeast Title and Insurance Company v. Thompson, 231 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1970) are distinguishable from this case because in both, the resident relative who sought uninsured motorist coverage was excluded from liability coverage by the terms of the particular policy. Although section 627.727(1) does not establish a mandatory scope of coverage, uninsured motorist coverage must be extended to family members if they are included in the basic liability coverage provisions of the policy....

...This is quite different from Dairyland and France, where the family members who owned a car had no liability coverage at all. NOTES [1] Because of the date the policy was issued, we do not need to consider what, if any, impact the 1984 amendment to the uninsured motorist statute section 627.727 might have on this case....

...o are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured vehicles because of bodily injury resulting therefrom." Pena v. Allstate Ins. Co., 463 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 476 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1985); see also § 627.727(1), Fla....

...Here, Auto-Owners issued its policy to Above All Roofing, not to Mr. Loskot. The policy extended UM coverage to any person while occupying or getting into or out of the insured van. This provision added to, rather than limited, the statutorily required owner's coverage. See § 627.727(1), Fla....

...statute of limitations would defeat a lawsuit against the third-party tort-feasor. We reject this interpretation of Boynton. An insured is entitled to UM benefits when the insured is "legally entitled to recover damages" from the uninsured motorist. Section 627.727(1), Fla....

...1st DCA 1990) (citing Boynton, 486 So.2d at 555), review denied, 574 So.2d 139, 141 (Fla. 1990) (approved in Dauksis v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 623 So.2d 455 (Fla. 1993)). Boynton held "that the phrase `legally entitled to recover' in the context of section 627.727(1) does not encompass claims where the insured tortfeasor is immune from liability because there is a statutory bar to an action against the insured tortfeasor, but for which bar, recovery would lie." Michigan Millers Mut....

...ve's $15,000 of uninsured coverage, leaving no sum available to Johnson from Reserve for which appellant should be responsible. In cases involving the stacking of uninsured motorist coverage two statutes are involved: The uninsured motorist statute, Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, which requires uninsured motorist coverage to be offered with automobile liability insurance, and Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes, [1] commonly called the anti-stacking statute, which generally attempts to limit...

...can "stack" that coverage onto coverage under Fudge's policy with Reserve. The third and last problem in this case relates to setoffs against uninsured motorist coverage. Since the decision of the trial court in this case, this court has interpreted Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1979), to not allow a set-off for PIP and medical benefits against uninsured motorist coverage....

...Since the above findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm on the authority of Gillen v. United Service Automobile Ass'n, 300 So.2d 3 (Fla. 1974) and Decker v. Great American Insurance Co., 392 So.2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). AFFIRMED. GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Compare § 627.727, Fla....

...Johnson had motor vehicle liability coverage with State Farm, and the Mitchels had uninsured motorist insurance issued by Dominion. When State Farm agreed to tender its $20,000 policy limits to settle the claims, the Mitchels' counsel, pursuant to section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), asked for Dominion's permission to accept the settlement....

...Dominion contacted State Farm to advise that it would seek reimbursement of its payment to the Mitchels. State Farm failed to pay. On January 8, 1998, Dominion filed a multi-count suit against Johnson and State Farm. In count I, entitled "Action to Recover Monies Paid Pursuant to Florida Statute § 627.727(6)(B)," Dominion asserted that it was entitled to subrogation against Johnson and State Farm pursuant to the statute....

...It did not pay pursuant to a duty arising from any relationship it had with Johnson or State Farm. In the absence of some such relationship, Dominion had no cause of action for indemnity. See Dade County School Board, 731 So.2d 638. Dominion argues that the substantial revisions to section 627.727(6)(b) in 1992 compel a determination that its subrogation counts were timely....

...Specifically, Dominion refers to statutory language providing that "thereafter, upon final resolution of the underinsured motorist claim, the underinsured motorist insurer is entitled to seek subrogation against the underinsured motorist and the liability insurer for the amounts paid to the injured party." § 627.727(6)(b)....

...subrogee to sue for enforcement of the tortfeasor's liability long after the limitations period for either a contractual or equitable subrogation action had expired. We do not believe the legislature intended to alter subrogation rights in this way. Section 627.727(6)(a) provides that upon notification of a proposed settlement an uninsured motorist carrier has thirty days to "consider authorization of the settlement or retention of subrogation rights." (Emphasis supplied.) Subsection (b) contemp...

...or "preserved" is not thereby transformed into something else. Moreover, enhancement of the uninsured motorist insurer's subrogation rights as espoused by Dominion would have been outside the intended purpose and scope of the statute. When amending section 627.727(6), the legislature resolved the financial dilemma of an injured party whose acceptance of needed settlement funds is precluded by his uninsured motorist carrier's election to preserve its subrogation rights....

...In its order the court stated that American Ambassador had conceded that Sanchez was entitled to go to arbitration. The court reserved jurisdiction to determine an award of attorney's fees and costs. On February 22, 1989, the trial court issued an order which denied Sanchez's motion for attorney's fees, citing section 627.727(8), Florida Statutes (1987), and LaChance v. Sagumeri, 537 So.2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 545 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 1989). Section 627.727(8), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: The provisions of s....

...le sum as fees or compensation for the insured's or beneficiary's attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had. American Ambassador now claims that the only dispute with Sanchez was regarding how much coverage was available, therefore, section 627.727(8) prevents her from obtaining attorney's fees under section 627.428(1) because there was no dispute over whether the policy provided coverage....

...Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229, 238 (Fla. 1971). See also Weathers v. Mission Ins. Co., 258 So.2d 277 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Section 627.412, Florida Statutes (1975) ("Insurance contracts shall contain ... standard ... provisions as are required by ... code"); Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975) (UM coverage required by code)....

...The coverage available to the insured is not affected by the fact that there may be more than one tortfeasor involved. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Timon, 379 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Thus, appellee, was covered by UM insurance in the total sum of $40,000. [1] However, the language of the statute (section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975), as amended by ch....

...Kreidler of Rice & Kreidler, Jacksonville, for appellee. MILLS, Judge. Glover appeals from an adverse final summary judgment entered in an uninsured *13 motorist suit he brought against Aetna, the insurance carrier of his employer. He contends that under Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971), an insurance carrier must provide uninsured motorist coverage unless written notice rejecting the coverage is given by the insured. Aetna contends that Section 627.727(1) does not require written rejection and that oral rejection is sufficient....

...he coverage. The agent kept an application in his file which showed that the insured chose to obtain uninsured motorist coverage on its private passenger vehicles only. The vehicle used by Glover at the time of the accident was a commercial vehicle. Section 627.727(1) requires an insurance carrier to write uninsured motorist coverage in an amount up to the level of the liability insurance coverage selected, unless the named insured selects a lower amount or rejects uninsured motorist coverage entirely....

...Co., 380 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), it is conversely the case that liability insureds may not be excluded from UM coverage. Salas v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 272 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1972); Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1971); § 627.727(1), Fla....

...-insurer-lessor and a rental contract between the parties. As the court said in Lipof, supra, providing compliance [with the financial responsibility law] through self-insurance is not the same as issuing a motor vehicle liability policy; therefore, section 627.727 is not applicable, nor does Budget's status as a self-insurer make it an "insurer" under the Florida Insurance Code....

...AN INSURANCE COMPANY DENIES COVERAGE AND LIABILITY UNDER THE UNINSURED MOTORIST PROVISION OF ITS POLICY, SO THAT ITS INSURED IS FORCED TO FILE SUIT AGAINST IT, BUT THEREAFTER CONCEDES COVERAGE SO THAT ONLY LIABILITY AND DAMAGES REMAIN AT ISSUE, DOES SECTION 627.727(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985) LIMIT THE FEE AWARDABLE UNDER SECTION 627.428(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985) TO ONLY THAT PERIOD DURING WHICH COVERAGE WAS AT ISSUE, ALTHOUGH LIABILITY AND DAMAGES CONTINUE TO BE LITIGATED AFTER THE ELIMINATION OF THE COVERAGE ISSUE? Id....

...s fees for other issues in the same action are not covered by the statute. For the reasons expressed, we agree with the district court's decision and answer the certified question in the affirmative. [1] The question requires us to determine whether section 627.727(8), Florida Statutes (1985), directs payment of attorney's fees for work done on the issues of liability and damages when coverage has been an issue in the same proceedings....

...erformed by Moore's attorney prior to Allstate's admission to the amount of coverage, explained in its order: 5. The purpose of uninsured motorist coverage is to protect the insured just as if the third party Tortfeasor had liability insurance. 6. F.S. 627.727(8) is meant to limit attorney's fees to those actions for uninsured motorist benefits when the insurance company denied coverage....

...without attorney's fees. The district court agreed with the trial court's reasoning and held: Allstate's answer conceding on the coverage issue "finally dispose[d] of a discrete piece of litigation... and qualifies for a fee." Under the language of section 627.727(8), the issue of coverage was not in dispute after Allstate's answer, and thus services rendered on the remaining issues were not susceptible of a section 627.428(1) award....

...under a policy or contract executed by the insurer, the trial court... shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured ... a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured's ... attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had. Section 627.727(8), Florida Statutes (1985), reads as follows: The provisions of s....

...627.428 do not apply to any action brought pursuant to this section against the uninsured motorist insurer unless there is a dispute over whether the policy provides coverage for an uninsured motorist proven to be liable for the accident. Moore argues that a literal reading of section 627.727(8) requires the payment of attorney's fees and costs for all issues in an action which includes the coverage issue....

...for the coverage issue once the plaintiff has commenced an action that involves a coverage dispute and other claims. We disagree and find that the trial court and the district court decisions correctly held that the uninsured motorist provisions of section 627.727 were, as the trial judge reasoned, intended to place the injured party in the same position as he would have been in had the tortfeasor been insured. Section 627.727(8) accomplishes this purpose by directing that an insurer pay attorney's fees for the coverage issue when the insured prevails. We can find no legislative intent to place the insured in a better position than he would have been in if the tortfeasor had been insured. While one could read subsection (8) of section 627.727 separately from the rest of the statute and arrive at Moore's literal interpretation, we find that, to arrive at the proper interpretation, one must read section 627.727's uninsured motorist provisions in their entirety....

...I am inclined to believe that if this policy had included such certification, this court would be authorized to override this exclusion. Likewise, Florida law does compel family automobiles to have $10,000 of compulsory liability insurance to cover property damage. [3] See § 627.7275, Fla....

...o compensation for bodily injuries arising out of automobile accidents involving family automobiles. This policy shift was first reflected in the creation of highly regulated uninsured motorist coverage. See ch. 61-175, Laws of Fla. (now codified at § 627.727, Fla....

...The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant the motion for summary judgment filed by it, since as a matter of law it could not be concluded that Goldman's injuries arose out of the ownership, use, or maintenance of either an uninsured or hit-and-run vehicle, as defined under Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975), or in the policy between the parties....

...Garner, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D388, D389, ___ So.2d ___, ___, 2004 WL 396604 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 11, 2004). Admittedly, this case is unique because the alleged ambiguity is not in the language of the form, but in the manner in which the form is filled out. Analysis Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1991), requires that all motor vehicle liability insurance policies that provide bodily liability coverage include uninsured motorist coverage. Under section 627.727(1), the amount of UM coverage is equal to the amount of bodily injury liability purchased by an insured, unless the insured rejects UM coverage or selects lower limits of UM coverage....

...st coverage does not apply. Long v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 707 So.2d 390, 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (citing Jackson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 469 So.2d 191, 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)). With regard to the rejection or selection of UM coverage, section 627.727(1) specifically provides: The rejection or selection of lower limits shall be made on a form approved by the Insurance Commissioner....

...uded uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $15,000/$30,000. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (U.S.F. & G.) provided $15,000 uninsured motorist coverage to A-1, and Curry made a demand upon this coverage as an underinsured pursuant to section 627.727....

...Upon appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal agreed that such stacking was permissible and expressly rejected the reasoning and holding of the First District Court of Appeal in Taylor. [1] The issue we must decide is whether stacking of uninsured motorist policies is allowed under the facts of this case by section 627.727(2) as it existed in 1976. Section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1975), concerns uninsured motorist coverage and reads in part as follows: (2) For the purpose of this coverage, the term "uninsured motor vehicle" shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be d...

...the statute. [2] Approximately eight months after the Taylor decision, the First District, in Main Insurance Co. v. Wiggins, 349 So.2d 638 (Fla.1st DCA 1977), expressly receded from its exclusion of an insured's family members from the provisions of section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1971), and Hunt v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 349 So.2d 642 (Fla.1st DCA 1977). However, the district court in Wiggins continued to exclude nonfamily occupants of an insured vehicle from stacking *532 coverage under section 627.727(2), holding that the legislature did not intend to extend coverage to persons not related to the policyholder....

...and rejected the Taylor view. Cox v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 378 So.2d 330 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Lezcano v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 372 So.2d 214 (Fla.4th DCA 1979). [2] Chapter 77-468, section 30, Laws of Florida, amended the relevant language of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 1978) (family household exclusion in liability policy upheld). In fact, no one in the instant case suggests that the exclusion of Welker from liability coverage while driving his own truck was invalid. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991), only requires insurers to offer uninsured motorist coverage to the extent of the liability coverage....

...oviding uninsured motorist coverage. Nor is there any justification for such a major change now. The majority opinion does not identify any legislative enactment to justify curtailing the broad legislative policy enunciated in Mullis and provided in section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991), [formerly section 627.0851, Florida Statutes (1969)]....

...ld be effectively whittled away to little more than a woodchip. NOTES [1] We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. [2] The statute at issue in Mullis was section 627.0851, Florida Statutes (1969), the predecessor to the current statute, section 627.727 (1991). [3] Of course the insured may elect to expressly reject uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...economic losses along with his non-economic losses. Accordingly, we have no way of knowing whether the UM award duplicates benefits already recovered. A UM carrier seeking such a setoff is required to establish the fact of duplicative benefits. See, § 627.727(1), Fla....

...[2] Because the UM carrier in this case failed to establish that there was a duplication of benefits in the UM award, it was error to grant the setoff. REVERSED. STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The jury was not asked to consider economic damages for medical expenses or lost wages. [2] Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in part that: "The coverage described under this section shall be over and above, but shall not duplicate, the benefits available to an insured under any workers' compensation law, personal injury...

...Appellant's request for a $15,000 setoff was again denied. We reverse. The trial court erred in refusing to allow the setoff. Uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance provides coverage in excess of, but does not duplicate, benefits available to the insured from the tortfeasor. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...We can find no authority for appellee's contention that only benefits "actually received" by the insured can be applied as an offset against his uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. There is nothing in the statute or elsewhere suggesting that the word "available" in Section 627.727(1) was not used intentionally....

...ble together with such owner or operator for the accident; and such coverage shall cover the difference, if any, between the sum of such benefits and the damages sustained, up to the maximum *1209 amount of such coverage provided under this section. § 627.727(1), Fla.Stat....

...except for the benefit of persons having an insurable interest. [2] Uninsured motor vehicle coverage must be provided in all motor vehicle liability insurance contracts issued in this state, unless the named insured rejects the coverage in writing. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...§ 1332 (1977). On its face, the policy limits uninsured motorists protection to $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident. The policy's general automobile liability limits are $100,000 per individual and $300,000 per accident. Lancaster Oil is relying upon Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977) [2] , which prohibits delivery or issuance in Florida of automobile liability insurance unless uninsured motorists protection with the same limits as the liability insurance is included....

...ility coverage and selected the lesser coverage shown by its policy. Lancaster Oil says it did not. Hartford says Lancaster Oil made the crucial election in 1976. The parties agree that any rejection and selection of lesser coverage, by operation of Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), would carry forward to the 1977 policy involved here....

...The Clerk shall enter a judgment for the defendant and tax the appropriate costs. NOTES [1] Actions for declaratory judgment are created by Chapter 28 United States Code, Section 2201 (1977). [2] The years 1975 through 1977 are involved. During the period the pertinent provisions of the statute did not change. § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (1977); § 627.727(1), Fla.Stat....

...its of $500,000. The statutory requirement to reject uninsured motorist coverage in writing is not applicable because it did not become effective until 1982. See Kimbrell v. Great American Insurance Co., 420 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1982). However, in 1980, section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1981), was amended to provide for annual notification of the named insured of his options concerning the right to purchase uninsured motorist coverage....

...ty limits in 1981 prior to the accident, we must address the significance of that omission. We agree with our sister court that permissive users, such as Smith, cannot complain of the insurer's failure to comply with the annual notice requirement of section 627.727....

...$20,000 per accident is not less than the requirements of the Florida Financial Responsibility Law and is in an amount up to the amount of the liability limits shown thereon and the face of the plaintiffs' Amended Declaratory Action does thereby show that the referred to insurance policy is in full compliance with F.S. 627.727 as amended by Chapter 71-88, Laws of Florida; and no justiciable controversy therefore exists ..." On appeal, Garcia contends that (1) the trial court erred in dismissing the action without giving him a declaration of the amount of his uni...

...Stat., 1969) required limits "not less than" the financial responsibility limits and was silent as to the limits that could be provided in excess of the financial responsibility limits. Then, Chapter 71-88 added "and in an amount up to" the liability limits (§ 627.727, Fla....

...vided liability coverage for him, had the accident in question been his fault. Allstate, however, points out that an insurer is permitted to limit uninsured motorist coverage through exclusions such as the one contained in these policies pursuant to section 627.727(9)(d), Florida Statutes....

...ured motorist coverage provided by the policy does not apply to the named insured or family members residing in his household who are injured while occupying any vehicle owned by such insureds for which uninsured motorist coverage was not purchased. § 627.727(9)(d), Fla....

...and that such coverage is an alternative to coverage without such limitation. If the form is signed by the named insured, applicant, or lessee, it shall be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing acceptance of such limitations . .. § 627.727(9), Fla....

...nsation benefits. Appellant's attorney was awarded a fee for his services. Appellant challenges the judgment and appellee challenges the allowance of an attorney's fee. We affirm the judgment on the case in chief, but reverse the fee. 1. UMC Setoff. Section 627.727(1) (1975) provides that UMC benefits "shall be excess over but shall not duplicate benefits available to an insured under any workmen's compensation law," and from various other sources (including the tortfeasor's liability carrier) not relevant here....

...Bowling's medical bills into evidence without objection from State Farm. The majority is correct that in accordance with this court's determination in USAA Casualty Ins. Co. v. Shelton, 932 So.2d 605, 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), Mr. Bowling was required to prove under section 627.727, Florida Statutes (2004), that the damages in his uninsured motorist (UM) claim "were reasonable, necessary, and related to the accident." Yet our focus in Shelton was whether evidence of an *543 insurer's payment of personal injury p...

...Such a practice would make a third-party's billing practices the focus of the trial rather than the questions of coverage, [4] negligence by the uninsured motorist, and the extent of the plaintiff's injuries sustained in the accident that are typically raised under section 627.727....

...be informed that he is entitled to (a) have UM coverage equal to the amount of bodily injury coverage, (b) reject any UM coverage, or (c) choose lesser limits of UM coverage; further the insurer could not rely upon the renewal exception contained in Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes, to obviate the necessity of obtaining a response from the insured as to which of the foregoing options he selected....

...te Farm. We have jurisdiction. Insurance Co. of North America v. Querns, 562 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(k). Because we agree with State Farm's contention that the trial court constitutionally erred by applying the provisions of section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...State Farm denied coverage because of the unauthorized settlement, resulting in the Hassens' seeking a declaration of their rights under their policy and Florida law as to the existence of uninsured motorist coverage. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In determining coverage by way of summary judgment, the trial court ruled that section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...assens "were free to settle and release the tortfeasors without prejudice to their claim for underinsured motorist benefits from Defendant, STATE FARM." III. STATUTORY/CONTRACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS On the effective date of the policy at issue, section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1989), governed the respective rights and obligations of the parties in the event the Hassens presented State Farm with a proposed settlement agreement from an uninsured motorist's liability insurance carrier....

...repayment obligation on State Farm in order to preserve its right of recovery against a tortfeasor. In 1992, however, the legislature clearly manifested its intent to substantially revise the subrogation rights of an uninsured motorist carrier under section 627.727(6) by imposing a new prepayment obligation on such a carrier if it chooses to preserve those rights....

...mmediate award to its insured prior to the determination of any liability for damages and the exhaustion of the uninsured motorist's liability insurance coverage. It is obvious from this analysis that the legislative purpose for the 1992 revision of section 627.727(6) was to address the situation in which an injured party was denied immediate access to needed compensation from a tortfeasor's liability carrier because the injured party's uninsured motorist carrier refused to approve a settlement offer and waive its subrogation rights....

...1985) ("[S]tatutory changes occurring between renewals cannot be incorporated into [an insurance] policy without unconstitutionally impairing the obligations of the parties to the insurance contract."). Measured against these time-honored principles, we conclude that the application of section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...tracts." See Yamaha Parts Distrib., Inc. v. Ehrman, 316 So.2d 557 (Fla. 1975). Our conclusion is based on the following analysis. We initially observe that the legislature clearly expressed its intent regarding the effective date of the act amending section 627.727(6) by providing "[e]xcept as otherwise provided herein, this act shall take effect October 1, 1992." Ch....

...t the specific amendments to subsection (6) were to be applied retroactively. Larson v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 158 Fla. 623, 29 So.2d 448 (1947). Conversely, however, the legislature clearly manifested its intent that the amendment to section 627.727 creating subsection (10) was remedial and was to be given retroactive effect....

...n its legal liability for noneconomic damages under its contract in the event the tortfeasors had personal injury protection insurance coverage under section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes (1989), at the time of Mrs. Hassen's accident. In that regard, section 627.727(7), Florida Statutes (1989), provided that: The legal liability of an uninsured motorist coverage insurer does not include damages in tort for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience unless the injury or disease is described in one or more of paragraphs (a) through (d) of s....

...permanent loss of an important bodily function. (b) Permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement. (c) Significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement. (d) Death. [9] Thus, "[i]n view of section 627.727(7), it is clear that the statute does not require an insurance carrier to provide uninsured motorist coverage for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience unless the threshold requirements of section 627.737(2) have been met." Dauksis v....

...Under the 1989 version of the statute, uninsured motorist coverage was required "for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury." § 627.727(1)....

...resolution of the claim. Thus, even though the statute later provides a remedy for a "post-deprivation" vindication of State Farm's subrogation rights, such a remedy, for due process purposes, is "too little, too late." Accordingly, we conclude that section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...to approve settlements of third party claims, thereby depriving their insureds of immediate access to needed compensation. Moreover, to the extent that some carriers may be engaging in such tactics, the legislature has provided a remedy by enacting section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...y for damages includes "the amount in excess of the policy limits, any interest on unpaid benefits, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and any damages caused by a violation of a law of this state." Accordingly, we conclude that the application of section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...Siegel, 610 So.2d 419 (Fla. 1992). VI. CERTIFIED QUESTION Because we determine, however, that the constitutional issues posed in this case are ones of great public importance, we certify the following two-part question to the Florida Supreme Court: IS SECTION 627.727(6), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP....

...CONCLUSION We, therefore, reverse the trial court's partial final summary judgment finding uninsured motorist coverage in favor of the Hassens and remand for further proceedings. On remand, we specifically direct the trial court to apply the provisions of section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1989), to this case in determining the issue of coverage....

...1992), the purpose of such coverage "is meant to compensate the plaintiff for a deficiency in the tortfeasor's personal liability insurance coverage." [4] The title to chapter 92-318, at 3081, 3084, reads in part as follows: "[a]n act relating to insurance; ... amending s. 627.727, F.S.; ......

...intertwined. Accordingly, we are obligated to construe them together. See Major v. State, 180 So.2d 335 (Fla. 1965) (statutes relating to the same subject matter and arising out of the same act must be read in pari materia). [6] The 1992 revision of section 627.727(6), which alters the contours of an uninsured motorist carrier's subrogation rights, is the latest example of the "fragile" relationship existing between the legislature and the uninsured motorist statute....

...and Mrs. Franz seek a determination that they were entitled to stacked coverage because Workmen's Auto Insurance had not properly provided a statutory renewal notice to them that explained their options in regard to the selection of this coverage. See § 627.727(1), Fla....

...The attached uninsured motorist form is to replace the form that we signed on or about 5-15-76. Said form now misplaced. It was our intent at that time to reject uninsured motorist coverage as of 5-15-76, and continuing throughout the term of our policy.' Barbara H. Thompson Barbara H. Thompson Comptroller Section 627.727(1) Florida Statutes (1975), requires an insurance carrier to write uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to the level of liability insurance coverage selected unless the named insured rejects such uninsured motorist coverage....

...As passengers who did not reside in the household of MBCC’s lessees, both Gervasio and Conroy are, at best, “Class II Insureds” under Florida law. According to defendants, Class II insureds, such as Gervasio and Conroy, have no standing to assert Allianz’s failure to comply with the annual notice requirements of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes....

...e equal to the liability limits of a policy. Furthermore, in Allianz Ins. Co. v. Halpenny, 678 So.2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that an insurer’s failure to comply with the annual notice requirements of section 627.727(1), regarding the options available for UM/UIM coverage, resulted in such coverage being equal to the liability limits set forth in the policy....

...matter, every written rejection would be worthless in that it would be obviated by convenient oral testimony to fit the circumstances and the case law. We must look to the purpose of the statute to find the answer. As the court in Kimbrell remarked, Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), embodies a public policy for the protection of insureds so that UM coverage will be available under all automobile insurance policies unless rejected by the insured....

...of Pittsburgh, 123 Fla. 244, 166 So. 583 (1936) and John Deere Industrial Equipment Co. v. Roberts, 362 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Our conclusion as to legislative intent is bolstered by a recent amendment to the statute in which the pertinent portion of Section 627.727(1) was amended to provide that the rejection of UM is to be made on a form "approved by the insurance commissioner." See Ch....

...GEICO'S EXCLUSION FROM THE COURTROOM Because we are reversing and remanding for a new trial, we are compelled to discuss GEICO's status as a party defendant in this lawsuit. GEICO, as the underinsured motorist carrier, was joined in this lawsuit pursuant to section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...In fact, in 1977 when the legislature first provided for the mandatory joinder of the uninsured motorist carrier who did not agree to the settlement with the tortfeasor, the legislature specifically differentiated between the "uninsured motorist insurer" and the "liability insurer." See 1977 Fla. Laws ch. 77-468 § 30; § 627.727(6), Fla....

...issued and delivered in Florida to the named insureds residing in Florida and thus subject to Florida law—is unenforceable where the insurer, the Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), failed to satisfy the informed consent requirement of section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...Because the Delaware policy was executed, issued, and delivered in Florida, it is the law of Florida that forms the basis for our interpretation of the parties' rights and liabilities in this case. [2] Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Stacking As noted in the district court's order, Florida's public policy, as reflected in section 627.727, Florida Statutes, favors the providing of insurance coverage for losses caused by uninsured motorists....

...Because the Delaware policy was executed in Florida and Florida law governs whether the anti-stacking provision contained in the Delaware policy is enforceable, we next examine the treatment of anti-stacking provisions under Florida law. Limitations on Anti-Stacking Provisions in Florida In 1987, section 627.727, Florida Statutes, which governs uninsured motorist coverage in Florida, was amended to provide specific guidelines for limiting the scope of uninsured motorist coverage in a given insurance policy. This amendment resulted in the creation of section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1987). See ch. 87-213, § 1, at 1341-42, Laws of Fla. At the time the Delaware policy was executed, this subsection provided (and still provides) that insurers may offer their insureds policies which limit coverage under certain stated conditions: 627.727 Motor vehicle insurance; uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage; insolvent insurer protection.— ....

...(e) If, at the time of the accident the injured person is not occupying a motor vehicle, she or he is entitled to select any one limit of uninsured motorist coverage for any one vehicle afforded by a policy under which she or he is insured as a named insured or as an insured resident of the named insured's household. § 627.727(9), Fla....

...as to two or more motor vehicles shall not be added together to determine the limit of insurance coverage available to an injured person for any one accident," is akin to the anti-stacking provision contained in the Randos' Delaware policy. However, section 627.727(9) also places limitations on how an insurer may restrict uninsured motorist coverage. Section 627.727(9) provides that in order for an insurer to prohibit the stacking of multiple uninsured motorist policies, it must satisfy certain requirements: In connection with the offer authorized by this subsection, insurers shall inform the nam...

...Such filing shall not increase the rates for coverage which does not contain the limitations authorized by this subsection, and such rates shall remain in effect until the insurer demonstrates the need for a change in uninsured motorist rates pursuant to s. 627.0651. § 627.727(9), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis added). Thus, while section 627.727(9) provides insurers with a mechanism to provide less coverage to an insured, it also protects the insured by requiring that the insurer obtain informed consent from the insured. Using a form approved by the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR), the insurer shall inform the named insured of the limitations authorized by section 627.727(9), and advise the insured that the offer is an alternative to a policy without those limitations....

...Because uninsured motorist coverage protects the insured, we reject the argument that the informed consent requirement does not apply in this case because the vehicle covered by the Delaware policy was not "registered or principally garaged" in Florida. The language "registered or principally garaged" is derived from section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2005), which compels insurers to provide uninsured motorist coverage in or supplemental to any motor vehicle liability insurance policy "delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specific...

...Once GEICO's Delaware policy was executed in Florida and issued and delivered to the named insureds in Florida, the requirements in subsection (9) extended to that policy and to any attempts to limit the stacking of the Randos' uninsured motorist coverage. In sum, we conclude that section 627.727(9) applies in this instance and that the Randos' informed consent was required by Florida law in order to validate the anti-stacking provision contained in the Delaware policy....

...eventh Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration. It is so ordered. QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and PERRY, JJ., concur. CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., dissent with opinions. CANADY, J., dissenting. Because I conclude that the provisions of section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (2005), have no application to policies with respect to motor vehicles that are not "registered or principally garaged in the state," as provided in section 627.727(1), I would answer the certified question in the affirmative. Based on statutory context and history, subsection (9) of section 627.727 is most reasonably understood as ancillary to subsection (1), which provides that—absent a *251 written rejection—no motor vehicle liability policy within the statute's scope be issued without the provision of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage....

...subsection (1). The conditions associated with subsection (9)'s alternative offer of unstacked coverage are irrelevant to policies that are not subject to the requirement for the offer of stacked coverage under subsection (1). In short, the text of section 627.727 does not require that the conditions in subsection (9) be applied to a policy of insurance providing unstacked UM coverage on a vehicle that is neither registered nor principally garaged in Florida....

...I dissent to the majority's answer to the certified question. I would answer the question, as phrased by the Eleventh Circuit, with a qualified affirmative. A policy may provide for anti-stacking, but only if the anti-stacking provision in a policy controlled by Florida law complies with section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...ARE—MAY VALIDLY PROVIDE THAT UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE UNDER THAT POLICY MAY NOT BE COMBINED WITH UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE PROVIDED BY A SEPARATE AUTOMOBILE POLICY ALSO ISSUED BY THE INSURER TO THE NAMED INSUREDS IN FLORIDA, WITHOUT SATISFYING SECTION 627.727(9), FLORIDA STATUTES....

...Co., 244 F.3d 876, 881 (11th Cir.2001))); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Roach, 945 So.2d 1160, 1164 (Fla. 2006) ("[ Lex loci ] will control absent some provision to the contrary."). Because Florida law applies, I agree with the majority's analysis and application of section 627.727(9) to this case....

...In the latter case the Supreme Court also pointed out that whether a rejection of such coverage was an informed one is a question to be determined by the trier of fact. In the present case Lane, Sr., contends that, since Mr. Haufe, the insurance manager for Waste Management, was not familiar with the provisions of Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977), any purported rejection of uninsured motorist coverage less than the bodily injury limits was not a knowing rejection....

...a renewal contract and not a new and materially different policy. Additionally, Lane argues that there are reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence such as that the "new requests" could have been material changes requiring compliance with Section 627.727....

...hat these past due benefits had been settled and paid. After various proceedings not pertinent to the issue on appeal, the trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners and Interbankers. Uninsured motorist coverage is defined in section 627.727, Florida Statutes, which states in pertinent part: (1) No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state ....

...Thus, the critical question in this case is whether the insurance carriers should be bound by the language of their contracts with the insureds, or whether they should be afforded the exemption from tort liability available under the provisions of sections 627.727(7) and 627.737(2), Florida Statutes....

...Boynton, 486 So.2d at 557. Moreover, the insurer may bring suit against the tortfeasor to recover all sums it has paid its insured under the uninsured motorist provision of the subject policy. Id., at 558. In Boynton, the supreme court held that in the context of section 627.727(1), the phrase "legally entitled to recover" does not encompass claims where the uninsured tortfeasor is immune from liability because of the Workers' Compensation Law....

...aims of their insureds. In such circumstances, *1313 it appears the public policy underlying uninsured motorist coverage, i.e., to provide coverage "over and above, ... benefits available to an insured under ... personal injury protection benefits," § 627.727(1), Fla....

...Following the trial, after the trial court set off the personal injury protection benefits and medical payment benefits previously received by the Campbells, the court refused to set off the $10,000 that each had received from the Bosselman settlement, finding that the language of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1999), precluded the setoff....

...y the amount of other liability insurance. Accordingly, the language in this section refers to what must be offered or made available to the purchaser; it has nothing to do with posttrial setoff. The section that does provide for posttrial setoff is section 627.727(6)(t), which states: "The underinsured motorist insurer is entitled to a credit against total damages in the amount of the limits of the underinsured motorist's liability policy in all cases to which this subsection applies...." § 627.727(6)(c), Fla....

...Finally, the jury was instructed to find the total damages incurred by each of the Campbells, including both economic and noneconomic damages. Because the underinsured jury award here did represent the total damages, it duplicated the benefits the Campbells received from the tortfeasor and the credit provision of section 627.727(6)(c) applies....

...We accordingly reverse and remand for a new trial on past noneconomic damages only for each of the Campbells. Upon a determination of those amounts, the trial court shall credit Allstate with a $10,000 offset against each of the Campbells' total damages award pursuant to section 627.727(6)(c)....

...d's uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier. Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1991); Opperman v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 515 So.2d 263 (Fla.5th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 523 So.2d 578 (Fla. 1988). As a result of section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes, adopted effective July 7, 1992, and specifically made applicable to all bad faith causes of action accruing after the 1982 effective date of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, an insured may now recover full dam...

...ning and ultimately classifying the severity ranking level of an offense committed on a particular date. Cf. Quirk v. Anthony, 563 So.2d 710, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (cautioning judges and lawyers against applying wrong underinsured motorist statute, section 627.727(1), in view of many amendments to statute after its creation), approved, 583 So.2d 1026 (Fla.1991)....

...shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured or beneficiary a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured’s or beneficiary’s attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had. Fla. Stat. § 627.428 (1). However, Section 627.727(8) states that “[t]he provisions of s. 627.428 do not apply to any action brought pursuant to this section against the uninsured motorist insurer unless there is a dispute over whether the policy provides coverage for an uninsured motorist proven to be liable for the accident.” Id. § 627.727(8)....

...As such, the uninsured motorist carrier is entitled to a set-off for any such personal injury protection benefits received by its insured to be applied against the uninsured motorist claim. Stuyvesant Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 307 So.2d 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. den. 316 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1975); Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Section 624.11(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that "[n]o person shall transact insurance in this state, or relative to a subject of insurance resident, located, or to be performed in this state, without complying with the applicable provisions of this code." In addition, section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides, in part, that "[n]o motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein... ." The purpose of section 627.727 is to protect "persons who are insured under a policy covering a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in Florida and who are impaired or damaged in Florida by motorists who are uninsured or underinsured and cannot thereby make whole the impaired party." Decker v....

...Unger, Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, and Wolfson, Diamond, Logan & Edge, Miami Beach, for appellant. Michael D. Stewart and M. Jerome Elmore of Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. MOORE, Judge. In this appeal we are called upon to review the provisions of the uninsured motorist statute, Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...d in the minimum amounts allowed by law. In essence then, Liberty Mutual was responsible for keeping the policy in compliance with the law of the various states. The liability limits in the policy remained the same. Pursuant to her interpretation of Section 627.727(1), Dianne Mattingly claimed uninsured motorist coverage equal to the limits of the liability insurance after she had had an accident with an uninsured motorist. In a final declaratory judgment the trial court held that she was entitled to a maximum of $10,000.00 in uninsured motorist coverage under the terms of the insurance policy which covered the automobile she had rented. Section 627.727(1) reads as follows: *149 "627.727 Automobile liability insurance; uninsured vehicle coverage; insolvent insurer protection....

...den., 200 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1967). "The problem is one for legislative action, not judicial fiat." Kohly at 822. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. CROSS, J., concurs. ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion. ANSTEAD, Judge, dissenting: Section 627.727(1) provided in part at the time in question: ......

...ine the equitable distribution rate and to compute the amount of Adjustco's equitable distribution lien. In pertinent part, the order suspending and holding in abeyance the equitable distribution hearing states: The Court recognizes that pursuant to 627.727(1) the Plaintiff cannot recover these workers' compensation benefits paid to him as part of his uninsured motorist claim....

...s from any uninsured motorist coverage is not included in the equitable distribution formula. Additionally, Florida's uninsured motorist law explicitly provides that a workers' compensation carrier shall not benefit from uninsured motorist coverage. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...+ uninsured motorist proceeds) would increase while the denominator (full value of claim) would remain the same. Thus, the equitable distribution rate would be increased which would in turn increase the amount of Adjustco's lien. Therefore, because section 627.727(1) prevents uninsured motorist benefits from benefitting any workers' compensation carrier, and because including uninsured motorist proceeds in the equitable distribution formula would benefit Adjustco by increasing its lien, this Co...

...uninsured motorist coverage ("UM") policy limits of $100,000. Because we hold that Sean Ditmore replaced his automobile policy with the same bodily injury liability limits after his former wife elected lower limits of $50,000 per person, pursuant to section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2004), we reverse the amount of the trial court's declaratory final judgment....

...e, or any relative if it is not insured for this coverage under this policy. This does not apply to an insured occupying a newly acquired car which has no uninsured motor vehicle coverage applicable to it. This restriction for UM coverage arose from section 627.727(9)(d), Florida Statutes (2004), which states that policies may provide that "[t]he uninsured motorist coverage provided by the policy does not apply to the named insured or family members residing in her or his household who are injur...

...under the above-referenced policy issued by Defendant." State Farm counter-claimed for a declaratory judgment that there is no UM coverage. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. State Farm argued that its policy language pursuant to 627.727(9)(d) entitled it to summary judgment without paying any UM benefits. The estates argued that the policy exclusion arising from 627.727(9)(d) did not apply because Stephanie's truck was a "newly acquired car," an exception to the restrictive language's application....

...Thereafter, the estates moved for amended summary judgment on the basis that the UM exclusion signed by Lori was not effective against Sean and Stephanie. The trial court agreed with the estates and held that State Farm failed to obtain a valid UM exclusion under section 627.727(9)(d). The trial court also found Lori's election of lower limits, although binding on all insureds at that time pursuant to section 627.727(1), was not binding on Sean or Stephanie because a new policy was issued *1014 solely to Sean, after his divorce from Lori in 2000, on a new vehicle, at a new address, and with new coverages....

...State Farm appealed the trial court's ruling that Lori's election of the lower UM benefits of $50,000 was not effective. Although State Farm denied the claims and defended in the trial court on the basis that no UM benefits were due because of the policy's exclusionary language pursuant to 627.727(9)(d), it makes no argument in its initial brief that no benefits are due because of this language in the policy....

...At oral argument, State Farm reiterated that it was only seeking a ruling that the reduced UM limits of $50,000 were available, and that it was not taking a position that no benefits were due. Accordingly, we do not address the trial court's ruling that State Farm failed to obtain a valid UM exclusion under section 627.727(9)(d), because it is not at issue....

...reduced UM coverage was ineffective against the claims by the estates. We agree with State Farm that Lori's election of reduced UM coverage remained in effect because the policy was replaced with the same bodily injury liability limits, pursuant to section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2004). [2] Section 627.727(1) states in pertinent part: When an insured or lessee has initially selected limits of uninsured motorist coverage lower than her or his bodily injury liability limits, higher limits of uninsured motorist coverage need not be provide...

...The rejection or selection of lower limits shall be made on a form approved by the office. . . . If this form is signed by a named insured, it will be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing rejection of coverage or election of lower limits on behalf of all insureds. § 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2004) (emphasis added)....

...As in Atlanta Casualty, Lori Ditmore elected reduced UM coverage on behalf of all insureds, and that policy was replaced with "the same bodily injury liability limits" as the previous policy. The divorce between Lori and Sean makes no difference in applying section 627.727(1)....

...Co., 721 So.2d 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (ruling that a new UM election was required after liability limits were increased); Nat'l Am. Ins. Co. v. Baxley, 578 So.2d 441 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (ruling that because there was a gap in coverage, there was no 627.727(1) replacement policy)....

...However, they argue that it is the cumulative effect of the various changes to the policy that causes it to be a "new" policy instead of a replacement policy as argued by State Farm. We find *1016 no basis in their "cumulative effect" argument in any statutory language, or in any case construing 627.727(1). The Florida Legislature stated, in section 627.727(1), that when lower UM limits have been selected, "higher limits of uninsured motorist coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to any other policy which renews, extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy wit...

...n election of reduced uninsured motorist coverage. Conclusion Because we hold that Sean Ditmore replaced his automobile policy with the same bodily injury liability limits after his former wife elected lower limits of $50,000 per person, pursuant to section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2004), we reverse the amount of the trial court's final judgment....

...A subsequent insubstantial amendment appears to have been rendered ineffective. Compare §§ 20 and 22 of Chapter 71-970, Laws of Florida, with O'Malley v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, Fla. 1971, 257 So.2d 9. Section 627.0851, F.S., was renumbered 627.727, F.S. See table at 18A FSA, p. 498. It thus seems that § 627.0851(4), as amended by Chapter 71-355, is now in the Florida Statutes as § 627.727(4)....

...Baum testified that it was his signature on the form. The trial court subsequently entered a final judgment in favor of Allstate Insurance Company based on its finding that Mr. Baum had made an informed rejection of uninsured motorist coverage as defined by Florida Statutes and case law. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides that uninsured motorist coverage shall be afforded to insureds under an automobile liability policy unless rejected by the insured....

...able to him. That form reproduced *203 in the margin [1] is as clear an explanation of the subject as we have heretofore seen. Thus, appellee relies upon Jackson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 469 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) wherein the court said: Section 627.727(1) provides that uninsured motorist coverage shall be afforded to insureds under a motor vehicle liability policy but that an insured under such a policy does not have statutorily required uninsured motorist coverage when that coverage has been rejected in writing by the insured....

...matter, every written rejection would be worthless in that it would be obviated by convenient oral testimony to fit the circumstances and the case law. We must look to the purpose of the statute to find the answer. As the court in Kimbrell remarked, Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), embodies a public policy for the protection of insureds so that UM coverage will be available under all automobile insurance policies unless rejected by the insured....

...of Pittsburgh, 123 Fla. 244, 166 So. 583 (1936) and John Deere Industrial Equipment Co. v. Roberts, 362 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Our conclusion as to legislative intent is bolstered by a recent amendment to the statute in which the pertinent portion of Section 627.727(1) was amended to provide that the rejection of UM is to be made on a form "approved by the insurance commissioner." See Ch....

...rom the tortfeasor but also by the $2,000 medical expense benefits provided by Liberty Mutual. UMI benefits are not awardable to the extent they duplicate "benefits available to an insured under ... any ... automobile medical expense coverages... ." Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977). Hall's reply brief makes representations dehors the record concerning the issue or renewal date of the Liberty Mutual policy, suggesting that present section 627.727 is inapplicable....

...Nor is that definition precluded by statute or prior case. Nothing prevents appellant from issuing a policy with broader coverage *1186 than that required by statute. The statute requiring uninsured motorist coverage contains no definition of motor vehicle. Section 627.727, Fla....

...We add that the injury is identical when caused by an unregistered motorcycle or a registered one; in a parking lot as well as on the public streets. The judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED. BOARDMAN, Acting C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(1), Fla....

...to the excess limits of bodily injury liability, notwithstanding a rejection of uninsured motorist coverage in the primary policy. See First State Insurance Co. v. Stubbs, 418 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), review denied, 426 So.2d 26 (Fla. 1983); § 627.727(1), Fla....

...November 7, 1984. Rehearing Denied January 4, 1985. Joe N. Unger of Law Offices of Joe N. Unger, P.A., Miami, and Kopplow & Flynn, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Marcia E. Levine of Fazio, Dawson & DiSalvo, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1981), provides in pertinent part that uninsured motorist coverage "shall be over and above, but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured ......

...It also granted AFIC's motion to sever the counterclaim. The parties proceeded to non-jury trial upon the sole question raised by the counterclaim of whether AFIC's uninsured motorist coverage was $15,000 or $250,000. The trial court concluded the lower amount was correct. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977) required uninsured motorist coverage in any automobile liability insurance policy except "when, or to the extent that, any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage." The statute further provided that if the named insured had rejected the coverage in a policy previously issued to him by the same insurer, coverage in a renewal policy need not be provided absent written request for same by the named insured. Section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1977) specified that the limits of the uninsured motorist coverage shall not be less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the named insured or such lower limit as the named insured may select....

...such coverage was what he intended because he did not want to spend any more money on his automobile insurance. He stated on cross-examination that he did not recall any specific conversations concerning uninsured motorist coverage. When considering Section 627.727(1), the court in Lancaster Oil Co....

...nd for the coverage of another driver, even though the insured had previously affirmatively rejected higher coverage. Our decision in United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Van Iderstyne, 347 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), provides the answer. In construing Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1973) we said that an endorsement to an automobile liability insurance policy, adding an automobile and the premium therefore, constituted issuance of a severable and separate contract of insurance....

...torist coverage was made in that period. There can be no informed rejection in the absence of an informing offer. [6] Lastly, we reject appellant's argument that the trial court erroneously struck her claims for attorneys' fees. The last sentence of Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1977) expressly provides that "[t]he provisions of s....

...627.428 shall not apply to any action brought pursuant to this section against the uninsured motorist insurer." (emphasis added). We think this clear unequivocal language means what it says, i.e., that an attorneys' fee award, as provided for in Section 627.428, [7] is impermissible in an action brought pursuant to Section 627.727....

...coverage endorsement is "an insured" as the term is used in section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes and therefore entitled to attorneys' fees. [4] *373 Appellee also argues that appellant is not entitled to attorneys' fees because the last sentence in section 627.727(6) is all-inclusive: "The provisions of s....

...uninsured motorist insurer." Appellee alleges its counterclaim falls within the parameters of this sentence because the issue of coverage necessarily would have been involved in the disposition of appellant's complaint which she brought pursuant to section 627.727(6), making her ineligible for attorneys' fees....

...The Third District Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that: the plaintiff was entitled to attorneys' fees because he had satisfied section 627.428(1) by obtaining a judgment on the merits against his insurer on a policy executed by the insurer; and section 627.727(6) eliminates attorneys' fees in that limited type of action which the uninsured motorist initiates after his uninsured motorist carrier declines to approve a settlement between the insured and the tortfeasor's liability carrier....

...the vehicle in which the injured person, a non-relative, was riding and, if appellant does have standing, what amount of insurance coverage exists. Attorneys' fees would have been recoverable pursuant to section 627.428(1) prior to the enactment of section 627.727(6) had the insured prevailed in an action against or in defense of one by the insurer upon these issues. By amending section 627.727, the legislature did not intend to eliminate the right to fees which existed before the amendment....

...rclaim and remand for further proceedings. Our final consideration is of appellee's motion for rehearing, which we deny, adhering to our original opinion except as to attorneys' fees. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1977) provided: If an injured person or, in the case of death, the personal representative agrees to settle a claim with a liability insurer and its insured for the limits of liability, and such settlement would...

...such action, the liability insurer's coverage shall first be exhausted before any award may be entered against the uninsured motorist insurer, and any such award against the uninsured motorist insurer shall be excess and subject to the provisions of s. 627.727(1)....

...red person and uninsured motorist insurer's liability for damages up to its coverage limits. The provisions of s. 627.428 shall not apply to any action brought pursuant to this section against the uninsured motorist insurer. [2] The last sentence of Section 627.727(6) expressly excluded an action brought pursuant to said section from the provisions of Section 627.428....

...[5] The evidence adduced at trial also showed that a Ford Pinto was added to the policy in April, 1978, requiring an additional premium of $43.52. [6] See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Spencer, 397 So.2d 358, 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), where the court held that Section 627.727(1): [I]mposes a duty on the insurer to inform the insured of his statutory options so as to enable him to make an informed decision regarding the amount of UM protection, if any, he desires....

...e colliding vehicle upon the ground that plaintiffs' only connection with the named insured was that his automobile struck their commercial vehicle. [5] We also agree with Judge Pearson's concurring opinion that the placement of the last sentence of Section 627.727(6) in the sub-section creates an ambiguity.

...Insured was rear-ended by an uninsured motorist and sought UM benefits under his existing policy with GEICO. Insurer denied coverage based on its UM coverage policy exclusion for owned, but uninsured, vehicles. In this case, the accident occurred after the adoption of section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1987), in which the Florida Legislature amended the uninsured motorist statute to allow an insurer to offer UM coverage with limitations, including the following one: The uninsured motorist coverage provided by the policy does not apply to the named insured or family members residing in his *103 household who are injured while occupying any vehicle owned by such insureds for which uninsured motorist coverage was not purchased. Section 627.727(9)(d)....

...However, pursuant to this statute, to limit coverage validly, the insurer must first satisfy the statutorily mandated requirements of notice to the insured and obtain a knowing acceptance of the limited coverage. An insurer who provides coverage with the limitations of section 627.727(9) is also statutorily required to file revised, decreased premium rates for such policies. Insurer does not controvert that it failed to inform insured of the limitation on coverage or to obtain a knowing acceptance of limited coverage as required by section 627.727(9)....

...However, this does not obviate the requirement to comply with the statute as to the GEICO policy which provided UM coverage to the named insured, but attempted to limit the reach of the coverage. If the policy exclusion is valid despite noncompliance with the statute, the provision of section 627.727(9)(d) would be rendered meaningless....

...Florida Ins. Guaranty Ass'n., 517 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1988); Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1971). We hold that the insured's UM coverage under the GEICO policy provides coverage because the insurer failed to comply with section 627.727(9)....

...of Hartford, 562 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Consequently, the insurer's reliance on Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Wright, 543 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 551 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1989) is misplaced since the accident in Wright occurred before the enactment of section 627.727(9)....

...ppellant. Thomas M. Ervin, Jr. and Robert M. Ervin, Jr., of the Law Firm of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen, Tallahassee, and Maher, Overchuck & Langa, P.A., Orlando, for appellee. COBB, Judge. The issue presented on this appeal is whether under section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983) [1] , an underinsured motorist carrier is entitled to set-off the monies paid by the liability carrier for the tortfeasor from the verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff under the underinsured motorist (UM) coverage....

...Morales brought suit against Allstate for underinsured motorist coverage *953 benefits under a policy issued to Morales's sister, with whom she resided. The policy provided underinsured motorist coverage of $100,000.00 per person, $300,000.00 per accident. Allstate moved for a set-off under section 627.727(1) seeking a reduction from any judgment rendered in Morales's favor by the amount of the tortfeasor's liability limits already paid — $10,000.00....

...Lackore, 408 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1982), Bergmann v. Sentry Insurance, 422 So.2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Lobry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 398 So.2d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Lackore and Bergmann stand for the proposition that under section 627.727(1) (1983) an underinsured motorist carrier is not entitled to a set-off of the amounts paid to the plaintiff under non-liability insurance coverage absent a showing that recovery under the underinsured motorist coverage would be duplicative of the items of damage already compensated by non-liability benefits....

...y coverage. The purpose behind underinsured motorist coverage is to compensate the plaintiff, Morales, for a deficiency in the tortfeasor's personal liability insurance coverage. Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 363 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1978). Section 627.727(1) was only intended to allow the insured the same recovery which would have been available to her had the tortfeasor been insured to the same extent as the insured herself....

...Morales concludes that because Allstate failed to prove that the recovery sought here was duplicative of the benefits already paid under UM coverage, there is no way of knowing what items of damage the $10,000.00 payment was intended to cover; therefore, the set-off would be improper. Because UM coverage under section 627.727(1) (1983) was intended to be the mirror image of the tortfeasor's liability insurance coverage, it follows that the two types of coverage necessarily encompass the same items of damages....

...rage State Farm was required to afford him. The trial court found that Daniels' bodily injury coverage of $100,000.00 exceeded the limits of Smith's uninsured motorist coverage and, therefore, that Daniels was not an uninsured motorist as defined in section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983). We disagree. The Third District in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Diem, 358 So.2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) and Del Toro v. Allstate Insurance Co., 360 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), construed section 627.727 to provide uninsured motorist benefits to an injured party whenever benefits under a tort-feasor's liability insurance policy are exhausted by the payment of claims to persons other than the insured....

...The fallacy of this argument, however, is that it incorrectly assumes that the duty to offer uninsured motorist coverage arises from the contractual relationship between the insurance company and its insured. To the contrary, this duty is one that is created entirely by statute. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes requires an insurance company to offer uninsured motorist coverage with every policy that provides bodily injury liability coverage....

...If the insurance company fails to obtain a written rejection, the insured is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage up to the limit of the bodily injury liability coverage provided by the policy. See Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Beaver, 355 So.2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Additionally, section 627.727(1) defines the applicability of a written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage....

...not be provided in or supplemental to any other policy which renews, extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy with the same bodily injury liability limits when an insured or lessee had rejected the coverage. (emphasis supplied). § 627.727(1), Fla....

...Centennial Insurance Company, the appellee Fulton's uninsured motorist carrier, appeals from a final judgment enforcing a UM arbitration award in Fulton's favor, without setting off any amount for allegedly duplicating workers' compensation payments under section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...ntroduce any pertinent evidence on these questions. See Dodd, 396 So.2d at 1208. IV As to the merits of the proper calculation of the amount, if any, to be set off against the award if the trial court so rules after this hearing, we reemphasize that § 627.727(1) allows a deduction only of the amounts for which the claimant has already received compensation....

...It is alleged Lockwood negligently drove the car in such a manner as to injure appellant. Since Lockwood personally has no insurance appellant seeks to recover from appellee as the insurer of his vehicle under the Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage. Section 627.727 Florida Statutes....

...The insurance policy says: "Uninsured Automobile ... shall not include: (a) an automobile owned by or furnished for regular use to the named insured ..." Appellant urges us to declare this provision in the insurance contract to be void as against public policy; particularly, Section 627.727(1): "No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or p...

...Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 3, 1986. LETTS, Judge. Before us is yet another automobile accident case involving uninsured motorist coverage. The trial court held, by way of declaratory judgment, that the attempted rejection of such coverage did not comply with section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983), and that therefore uninsured coverage was available up to the limit of the liability coverage....

...State Farm then moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Grays' UM claim was barred by their failure to provide written notice to State Farm of their proposed settlement with the tortfeasor and their failure to obtain State Farm's prior written consent to the settlement as required by the insurance policy and section 627.727(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...This disputed issue, if resolved in the Grays' favor, would excuse their failure to comply with the statute. Additionally, even if the settlement provision was violated by the Grays, there is an issue of fact as to whether State Farm was prejudiced. The written notification requirement of section 627.727(6) creates only a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the insurance company....

...bility to third parties. Thus, in a typical automobile liability insurance policy, the personal injury protection coverage required to satisfy section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2000), and *466 the uninsured motorist coverage provided to comply with section 627.727, are coverage for the direct benefit of the insured and are often referred to as "first-party coverage." The liability coverage that protects the insured from claims or lawsuits filed by other parties and requires the insurance compan...

...Co., 948 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). III.Issue We must decide whether the provision in State Farm’s UM policy, which requires the Insured to file suit against the known uninsured motorist and State Farm, is against the public policy of the UM statute, section 627.727, Florida Statutes (2007), and therefore, void. IV.Analysis Pursuant to section 627.727(1), every motor vehicle liability insurer doing business in this state is required to offer UM coverage to its policyholders. See Young v. Progressive Se. Ins. Co., 753 So.2d 80, 82-83 (Fla.2000). Section 627.727(1) provides in relevant part: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified m...

...ions. See also USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Shelton, 932 So.2d 605, 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“The purpose of [UM] insurance is to provide a source of recovery when the insured has been injured by a tortfeasor with insufficient or no insurance.”) (citing § 627.727(1), Fla....

...” USAA Cas. Ins., 932 So.2d at 608 (citation omitted). 3 The Insured argues that the provision in the UM policy, which requires him to join the uninsured motorist in his claim against the UM carrier, is against the public policy of the UM statute, section 627.727....

...bring the uninsured motorist into the lawsuit. Placing the burden upon the Insured by making it a contractual obligation benefits State Farm, not the Insured. We, therefore, conclude that the provision is against the public policy of the UM statute, section 627.727, and therefore invalid....

...motorist coverage. Thus, the liability coverage held by Vorbok and the uninsured motorist coverage of appellant were equal. In order to determine if appellant can recover both under his policy and under Vorobok's policy we must look to the statute. Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1973), provides in pertinent part: "(2) For the purpose of this coverage, the term `uninsured motor vehicle' shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be deemed to include an insured motor v...

...a) * * * "(b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under uninsured motorist's coverage." The concept of underinsured motorist coverage provided for in Section 627.727(2)(b) only applies to a situation where the claimant has "UMI" coverage which exceeds the amount of "liability" coverage possessed by a tortfeasor....

...policy carried by the tortfeasor. Up to the limits of the policy the uninsured carrier is *1236 responsible for compensating the victim for damages which are not otherwise available. See Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1978); § 627.727(1), Fla....

...under the Nationwide policy. Nicholas recovered liability benefits under the Nationwide policy and then sought uninsured motorist benefits under the same policy arguing that pursuant to the 1984 amendments to the uninsured motorist coverage statute, section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), uninsured motorist coverage is over and above any motor vehicle liability coverage and therefore he can recover uninsured motorist benefits in addition to the liability limits....

...ees are awarded under the offer of judgment statute and rule. 863 So.2d at 211. In the present case, by contrast, the attorney's fees were awarded under section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2000), as modified by the uninsured motorist statute. See id. § 627.727(8)....

...to require that such policies issued on or after January 1, 1972 should include uninsured motorist coverage in limits no less than the liability insurance limits therein, unless rejected by the insured. Appellees policies which had been obtained by them prior to 1972, were not affected by the above amendment. [2] Section 627.727(1) Fla....

...Appellees had also filed a complaint alleging bad faith on the part of Michigan Millers. The two cases were consolidated below and the bad faith claim remains pending. The first issue to be decided is whether the school board's vehicle is an "uninsured motor vehicle" pursuant to section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1987). Michigan Millers argues that its UM coverage of $100,000 per person, $300,000 per accident is less than the school board's liability limits of $200,000 per person, $325,000 per accident; therefore, under section 627.727(3)(b), the school board's vehicle is not an "uninsured motor vehicle." See also Shelby Mutual Insurance Co....

...Michigan Millers also agreed that the aggregate amount of UM coverage available to appellees is $400,000. Because $400,000 is greater than $325,000, we hold that the school board's vehicle involved in the accident is an "uninsured motor vehicle" under section 627.727(3)(b)....

...Taking paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the summary final judgment in order, the first issue for our review is whether the absence of contact by the injured appellant with any object precludes recovery. [1] We hold that it does not. First, there is nothing in section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), which requires contact with anything....

...This could delay payments of those claims, contrary to the purpose of the PIP statute. An insurer is in a far different posture under UM coverage. The purpose of the insurance is to provide a source of recovery when the insured has been injured by a tortfeasor with insufficient or no insurance. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...And, unlike the case in a PIP claim, an insurer's assessment of a UM claim is unrestrained by concerns about statutory deadlines, penalties, or attorney's fees, or by the burden to develop "reasonable proof" that it is not responsible for the claim. See, e.g., § 627.727(8), Fla....

...Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Nationwide) challenges the trial court's order finding that Scott and Charis Hild (the Hilds) were entitled to stacked uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for injuries arising from an auto accident. Because the trial court's decision conflicts with the plain language of section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1997), we reverse....

...At each renewal, both before and after the Volvo was added to the policy, Nationwide sent written notice to the Hilds about the availability of both stacked and nonstacked UM coverage with the bill for their renewal premium pursuant to the requirements of section 627.727(1)....

...e Volvo. The trial court held that the Hilds were entitled to do so because Nationwide had failed to obtain a new UM selection form when the Hilds added the Volvo to the policy. Thus, the sole question on appeal is whether Nationwide was required by section 627.727(9) to obtain a new UM selection form electing nonstacked UM coverage when the Hilds added the Volvo to their existing policy....

...The plain meaning of the statutory language is the first consideration." Dep't of Revenue v. Cent. Dade Malpractice Trust Fund, 673 So.2d 899, 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (citing St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Co., 414 So.2d at 1073). The statute at issue here, section 627.727(9), states in pertinent part: In connection with the offer [of nonstacked UM coverage], insurers shall inform the named insured, applicant, or lessee, on a form approved by the department, of the limitations imposed under this subsect...

...4th DCA 2002) (holding that the substitution of one vehicle for another on an existing policy did not require a new UM selection form); Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Stafstrom, 668 So.2d 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding *717 that the addition of a new vehicle to an existing policy did not create a "new policy" for purposes of section 627.727(1) and therefore did not require a new UM selection form). This analysis is supported by a reading of section 627.727 as a whole....

...When an auto insurance policy is initially issued, the insurer must obtain a signed UM selection form on which the insured may reject UM benefits altogether, elect UM benefits in an amount less than the bodily injury liability limits, and elect either stacked or nonstacked UM coverage. [1] § 627.727(1), (9). The insurer's UM selection form must be preapproved by the Department of Insurance. § 627.727(1)....

...ce company must notify the insured "at least annually of her or his options" concerning UM coverage. Id. Both the notice of UM coverage options and the manner in which the notice is provided must be approved by the Department of Insurance. Id. Thus, section 627.727 does not contemplate or require that the insurer obtain a new UM selection form every time a change is made to the policy....

...The insured's original UM selection form controls unless the insured requests a change. While we recognize the Hilds' argument that an insured's desire for nonstacked UM coverage may change when an additional vehicle is added to an existing policy, section 627.727 simply does not require the insurer to obtain a new UM selection form in that instance....

...ng policy created a "new policy" for purposes of requiring a new UM selection *718 form. Id. at 420. Therefore, the Pohlman decision is simply inapplicable to this case. Because the trial court's final judgment runs contrary to the plain language of section 627.727(9), we reverse the final judgment....

...While such a requirement might be an improvement to the statutory scheme, this court cannot alter or amend the plain language chosen by the legislature. Reversed and remanded. COVINGTON, J., and MENENDEZ, MANUEL, JR., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1997), states in pertinent part: [Uninsured motorist coverage] is not applicable when, or to the extent that, an insured named in the policy makes a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy.......

...r such notices had been sent to, and were not acted upon by, plaintiffs. Thus, that such notices did not cure the initial failure of the insurance company to obtain a written rejection is irrelevant. *1172 Plaintiffs also argue that the amendment to section 627.727(1), which was effective October 1, 1987, should be applied retroactively and should be construed as clarifying prior legislative intent and as in effect representing a legislative overruling of Marchesano....

...torist coverage to damages flowing from bodily injuries suffered by the insured or a covered person. It is the established public policy of Florida that all automobile liability insurance policies must offer uninsured motorist protection as broad as section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1984) requires....

...Any attempt by insurance companies to restrict or limit uninsured motorist coverage by language in their policies will be disregarded and held void, of no effect, and against the public policy of this state. Salas v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 272 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1972). Section 627.727(1) mandates that uninsured motorist coverage be provided "for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motorist vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom." (Emphasis supplied)....

...Pursuant to the insurance contract at issue, this cause shall now proceed on to arbitration." The appellant insurance company urges that as a matter of law, it could not be concluded from the facts before the court that Goldman's injuries arose out of the ownership, use or maintenance of an uninsured vehicle as defined by Section 627.727, *542 Florida Statutes (1977), or as defined by the policy issued to Goldman....

...anty. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss filed by Reserve Insurance Company and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice as to Reserve. Appellants contend that their policy with Reserve was renewed after January 1, 1972, at which time § 627.727(1), F.S....

...the name of the coverage in question from "uninsured motorist" coverage to "excess uninsured" motorist coverage. The theory upon which appellants proceed may have been novel when conceived. However, effective October 1, 1973, the legislature amended § 627.727(2)(b), F.S., to provide that a person injured in an automobile accident with a tortfeasor whose insurance is inadequate to cover all of the insured person's damages may recover from his or her own carrier under the uninsured motorist provi...

...y to the extent the limits of said uninsured motorist coverage exceed the limits of the tortfeasor's policy. Of course that was not the law on May 8, 1972, when this accident took place, and Chapter 73-180, Section 5, indicates that the amendment of § 627.727(2)(b), is to be prospective....

...On the date of this accident appellants' uninsured motorist coverage was not involved because the tortfeasor was not an uninsured motorist. Lange v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Fla.App. 1974, 300 So.2d 68. Finally, appellants' reliance upon § 627.727(1), F.S....

...ding all sums paid under the Liability Coverage..." We hold that under the above-quoted provision, amounts previously paid under the policy reduce the uninsured/underinsured coverage available under the policy. This is in accord with Florida Statute § 627.727(1), as most recently interpreted by the Supreme Court in Dewberry v....

...Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla.1971), and the philosophy of coverage set forth in that opinion, the Legislature has specifically approved this exclusion from uninsured motorist coverage. [1] Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment for Auto-Owners. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 627.727(9)(d), Fla....

...of $1,000,000, with uninsured motorist [UM] coverage in the amount of $300,000. For several years Construct had elected this UM amount after its primary insurer had offered UM coverage up to the policy's million-dollar liability limit as required by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...policy with an endorsement which specifically excluded UM coverage (again because of the cost). It is this umbrella policy which is the basis for Tres' action. Tres' contention is that Royal, when it issued the umbrella policy, failed to comply with section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...should be construed to include UM coverage up to the amount of $1,000,000. Tres relies on Carbonell v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford, Conn., 562 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA *645 1990) and like cases [2] to reach this conclusion. First we note that section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1993), which deals with non-primary policies as here involved, differs substantially from section 627.727(1), which deals with primary policies as involved in Carbonell (and Adams and Nationwide). Section 627.727(1) [3] mandates that a primary policy include UM coverage unless an informed, knowing, written rejection of such coverage is made by the insured on the proper form....

...The purpose of this is "to assure that an insured appreciates the availability of UM coverage and makes a knowledgeable and deliberate decision to accept or reject it." Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So.2d 1026, 1029 (Fla.1991). On the other hand, section 627.727(2) does not contain the same requirements....

...Assuming that no UM availability notice was given by Royal to Con-Struct, nonetheless the record reflects that Con-Struct was aware of Royal's duty to offer UM coverage but that Con-Struct deliberately rejected any non-primary UM coverage because of its cost. As Con-Struct already had the knowledge that Royal's section 627.727(2) notice would have given it, any such notice by Royal to Con-Struct would have been surplusage....

...First, the issue before the Pohlman court was not whether the addition of a new vehicle to an existing policy would require an express rejection of UM coverage at liability limits, thereby overruling the various decisions, including Sentry, interpreting section 627.727 as imposing no such requirement....

...In answering this question, the Pohlman court held that a new contract on the added vehicle was created so that the provisions of section 627.4132, adopted between the issuance of the original policy and the addition of the new vehicle, would govern the "new contract." However, section 627.4132, unlike section 627.727, did not have a provision limiting its applicability to future contracts....

...a preexisting policy with the same bodily injury liability limits. *633 While the Pohlman court held that a new contract was created, it did not hold that the original contract was not extended or changed by the addition of a vehicle. Therefore, the section 627.727 waiver of the requirement to again obtain the rejection of increased uninsured motorist coverage remains applicable....

...We believe that the addition of a new vehicle to an existing policy can constitute both a "new policy" as to the added vehicle sufficient to incorporate intervening statutory changes and, at the same time, constitute an extension or change to the existing policy so that the terms of section 627.727 remain in force....

...te, if an insured insures a new additional vehicle under a pre-existing policy and pays a new premium, but under those same circumstances one does not have a new insurance contract requiring a new rejection of uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...provided in or supplemental to any other policy which renews, extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy with the same bodily injury liability limits unless the named insured requests higher uninsured motorist coverage in writing. § 627.727(1), Fla.Stat....

...The question of whether written rejection of coverage must be obtained under this statute was twice addressed by this court. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Bergman, 387 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), approved, 408 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 1982), we held that the 1979 version of section 627.727(1), which made rejection of coverage unnecessary for "renewal policies," encompassed the situation where an insured exchanged a replacement vehicle for the one insured under the policy....

...onclusion that a separate and severable contract was entered into on the date of the endorsement. Pohlman at 421. If a new insurance contract was formed when the Stafstroms added the third vehicle and paid the additional premium, the duty imposed by section 627.727 on GEICO to obtain a written rejection of uninsured motorist benefits at the same level as the bodily injury liability arose as to the newly added vehicle....

...Stafstroms. Coverage on the other two vehicles is limited to $10,000.00 per vehicle. In my view, the Stafstroms are therefore entitled to a total of $120,000.00 in uninsured motorist coverage. NOTES [1] This holding was based on the then applicable section 627.727 which provided "unless the named insured ......

...requests such coverage in writing, the coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy when the named insured has rejected the coverage in connection with a policy previously issued to him by the same insurer." The legislature later amended 627.727 to make our interpretation even more compelling by providing: When the named insured ......

...Paul), insuring an antique automobile. Brian Martin died in an accident that did not involve the antique motor vehicle. The Estate claims that Brian Martin was a class I insured because his father is the named insured on this policy. We hold that the requirements of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), and the legislative policies interpreted in Mullis v....

...ily-style uninsured motorist coverage in such a specialty policy. Instead, we are convinced that the strong public policies encouraging uninsured motorist coverage will be better served if we permit the coverage limitations in this specialty policy. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...ing death, resulting therefrom. There is no dispute that the antique automobile policy is a policy of "motor vehicle liability insurance" delivered in Florida on a specifically described Florida automobile. Although "motor vehicle" is not defined in section 627.727, it is undisputed that this 1963 Thunderbird is a "private passenger motor vehicle" for purposes of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law....

...This car is not quite old enough to qualify as a "horseless carriage," and even such antiques are generally regarded as motor vehicles. § 320.086, Fla. Stat. (1991). Thus, St. Paul cannot avoid the uninsured motorist statute by arguing that the antique auto is not a motor vehicle due to its restricted usage. Likewise, section 627.727(9) permits insurance companies to offer policies with specific limitations on the uninsured motorist coverage....

...sured for liability purposes. See, e.g., Bolin, 518 So.2d 393 (involved claims by persons who had elected not to purchase insurance on all of their cars). These concerns are better remedied by the various policy options offered by the legislature in section 627.727(9) than by judicial approval of broader exclusions based on the definition of "insured" in the separate section of the policy providing liability coverage. As a result, we also rely upon an alternative analysis for our result. Section *1001 627.727(1) does not specifically mandate coverage for claims unconnected with the insured vehicle. The requirement that class I insureds receive coverage for claims when they are pedestrians or occupants of other vehicles is an interpretation of section 627.727 announced in Mullis....

...This antique automobile policy does not provide the minimum coverage required for Mr. Martin in a policy issued for financial responsibility purposes. § 324.151(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993). It is not legally required to provide that coverage because the policy does provide the necessary no-fault coverage. Section 627.727 no longer mandates that the uninsured motorist coverage provide a level of protection equivalent to the protection that would exist if the tortfeasor had a policy complying with financial responsibility....

...We went on to state: "Self-insured" is different from "uninsured." Uninsured is when the tortfeasor's liability insurer has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the total damages sustained. [Florida Statute § 627.727(3)(b)(1995) of the Insurance *1112 Code] A self-insured entity is statutorily permitted to retain the risk of liability— a risk that is theoretically infinite....

...Firstly, appellant's basic argument concerning the stacking issue is grounded upon the belief that Tucker v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 288 So.2d 238 (Fla. 1973), is no longer viable as authority for stacking uninsured motorist coverage in the light of Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1973), which appellant claims is significantly different from former Section 627.0851, Florida Statutes (1969), as applied in the Tucker decision, supra. While we note a change in Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1973), allowing an insured a greater choice in the amount of uninsured motorist coverage he wishes to purchase, as compared to the "mandatory" language of Section 627.0851, Florida Statutes (1969), we do not believe said change affects the Tucker rationale....

...In 1961, the legislature enacted a law requiring automobile insurance issued in the state of Florida to offer coverage to persons injured by "owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles." Ch. 61-175, § 1, Laws of Fla. Since its enactment, the uninsured motorist statute (now section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985)) has been amended by the legislature over twenty times....

...Woodard moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of his entitlement to such benefits as a matter of law. The trial court granted his motion and entered a partial summary judgment in his favor, finding that the legislature specifically intended that the 1984 amendment to the uninsured motorist statute, § 627.727, Fla....

...The bodily injury must be caused by an accident arising out of the operation, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle. An uninsured motor vehicle does not include a land motor vehicle: (1) insured under the liability coverage of this policy. The court stated that the applicable statutory provision was § 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1983) which provided that an: insurer shall make available, at the written request of the insured, excess underinsured motor vehicle coverage, providing coverage for an insured motor vehicle when the other person's...

...The Second District disagreed, finding no conflict between the policy language and the statute and ruling that a person insured under such policy was precluded from collecting both liability coverage and uninsured motorist coverage under the same policy. The court reasoned that § 627.727, Fla....

...ge was less than the amount of damages caused by the injury. Accordingly, the court gave effect to the policy provision prohibiting payment of uninsured motorist coverage and liability coverage under the same policy. In 1984, the legislature amended section 627.727 by deleting subsection (2)(b) of § 627.727....

...ch owner or operator for the accident; and such coverage shall cover the difference, if any, between the sum of such benefits and the damages sustained, up to the maximum amount of such coverage provided under this section. Under the 1983 version of § 627.727(1), the next sentence read: Only the underinsured motorist's automobile liability insurance shall be set off against underinsured motorist coverage....

...rist benefits may be paid under the same policy to the same insured person. These statutory changes, however, would require such a result only if the vehicle involved were shown to fall within the definition of "uninsured motor vehicle" contained in section 627.727(3)(b), quoted in footnote 2 above....

...ce or be set off against the $10,000 uninsured motorist coverage. We hold this policy provision invalid. The 1984 amended uninsured motorist statute expressly prohibits reduction of uninsured motorist coverage by a setoff against liability coverage. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...[2] Under the 1984 act the term "uninsured motor vehicle" is defined as including one covered by insurance which provides "limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the insured person provided under uninsured motorist's coverage applicable to the injured person." § 627.727(3)(b), Fla....

...g that that policy also provided liability coverage. [4] Achievement of stability in the automobile insurance law of this state seems to be an unobtainable objective. During the 1988 session, the legislature once again made substantial amendments to section 627.727, which become effective October 1, 1989....

...tion in automobile policies written in this state to afford to the public, generally, the same protection that the public would have had if the uninsured motorist had carried public liability coverage. Section 627.0851(1), Florida Statutes 1970, now Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes 1971, F.S.A....

...Leinicke, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. We agree with the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Woolard, 523 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), deciding that the 1984 amendments to section 627.727, Florida Statutes, did not change the definition of an uninsured motor vehicle enunciated in section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...erage. Nationwide sought declaratory relief to determine the total amount of uninsured motorist coverage available. Gast claimed that the $20,000 limit was not effective since the higher u.m. limit was not properly rejected in writing as required by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...ndant carrier on this accident. Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 363 So.2d 1077, 1080-81 (Fla. 1978); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 371 So.2d 145 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Ilmonen, 360 So.2d 1271 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); § 627.727(1), Fla....

...They rejected in writing higher limits for uninsured motorist coverage. One year later, the policy was renewed under the same terms and conditions. Together with the renewal premium notice, Hartford sent the insureds a form used to comply with the annual notification provisions of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991). This form *550 had been approved by the Florida Department of Insurance, and it is uncontroverted that it met all of the requirements of section 627.727....

...Because he determined that the form was ambiguous, he apparently concluded that the insureds could not have made a knowing election. This appeal ensued. There is no question here that the insureds fully understood the effect of their original written rejection of higher uninsured motorist limits. Section 627.727(1) provides that where the insured has initially selected limits of uninsured motorist coverage lower than his bodily injury liability limits, higher limits of uninsured motorist coverage need not be provided in the renewal policy unless the insured requests higher uninsured motorist coverage in writing. "[W]hen the insurance contract is renewed an insured has the responsibility to consider the information supplied to him with the premium notice... . [W]here the insurance company complies with the annual notice provision of section 627.727(1) the insured's failure to act upon that notice at the time of renewal constitutes an affirmative waiver of uninsured motorist coverage limits higher than those specified in the purchased policy." Marchesano v....

...We conclude that the fact that the insured *551 did not read both sides of the form does not render the language ambiguous. "[T]he Legislature, by intending ... that an insured be bound by his failure to exercise the option provided to him in the written notification required by section 627.727(1), intended to counterbalance the ......

...In its response to the confirmation action, Travelers pointed out this admitted fact, and contended that the award should not be confirmed. The trial judge entered judgment for Travelers dismissing the petition for confirmation, and Bruno appeals. We affirm. Section 627.727(1) Florida Statutes (1977) expressly states that UM coverage provides protection only to the extent that it is in excess of, and does not duplicate benefits available to the claimant from the tortfeasor....

...ereas United Services asserted that there should be a setoff of $65,000 for the coverage provided by the other drivers because Dr. Strasser had only underinsured motorist coverage, not excess underinsured motorist coverage. The applicable statute is section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...The amount of such excess coverage shall not be reduced by a setoff against any coverage, including liability insurance. An insurer shall not provide both uninsured motor vehicle coverage and excess underinsured motor vehicle coverage in the same policy. [emphasis added] Under section 627.727(1) an insurance company is required to provide uninsured motor vehicle coverage unless it is specifically rejected in writing....

...n or setoff for other available insurance coverage. Subsection (1) required each insurer to annually notify the insured of his options as to coverage "required by this section". In contrast the excess underinsured motor vehicle coverage described in section 627.727(2) does not allow the insurance company a setoff for other available insurance coverage....

...Strasser's estate responded that United Services was not entitled to any setoff because the insurance company failed to advise Dr. Strasser of the availability of excess underinsured motor vehicle coverage as required by statute. The trial court ruled that United Services failed to comply with section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...We affirm the main appeal on the basis of the language of the statute which provides, "Each insurer shall at least annually notify the named insured of his options as to coverage required by this section." The legislature must have intended to make the notice provision applicable to the entire section 627.727 and not just subsection 627.727(1) because of the use of the term "section." If the legislature had intended only to require the insurance companies to give notice of the uninsured/underinsured coverage available and not the excess coverage then it would have used t...

...4th DCA 1985) and the cases cited therein. In Spira this court reversed the denial of excess uninsured motorist coverage because "the record does not reveal any evidence that the carrier offered uninsured motorist coverage equal to excess liability limits pursuant to section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983)." This indicates that this court has found the notice requirement to be applicable to all of section 627.727, including the subsection on excess uninsured motorist coverage....

...Hartley and Jon Derrevere, Miami, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ. NESBITT, Judge. A recurring question is whether the insured made a knowing rejection of the higher uninsured motorist benefits afforded by the policy issued, as is required by Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...The insured, Jose Realin, has difficulty communicating in the English language. He purchased a tow truck in December of 1975, after which he applied for and obtained from State Farm an automobile insurance policy containing bodily injury liability limits of $50,000/$100,000 and uninsured motorist coverage of $15,000/$30,000. Section 627.727(1), supra, mandates that uninsured motorist coverage limits be no less than bodily injury liability limits, unless, and to the extent that, the higher uninsured motorist limits are rejected by the insured....

...finding that the plaintiff "did not knowingly and with knowledge waive uninsured motorist protection." The District Court of Appeal, First District, held in Wilson v. National Indemnity Company, Fla.App. 1974, 302 So.2d 141, that because Fla. Stat. § 627.727 requires uninsured motorist coverage unless affirmatively rejected, it is only logical to require that the waiver be knowingly made....

...Id. The Florida Supreme Court did not find Reid controlling. It rejected Allstate’s argument that the automobile was not uninsured because Xerox had a liability policy that would have provided coverage. “A vehicle is insured [for purposes of Fla. Stat. § 627.727(a)] only when the insurance in question is available to the injured plaintiff.” Because Xerox was without fault and could not be held responsible, its “liability insurance was not available to [the injured mechanic].” Id....

...The invoice was stapled to the front of a blue policy jacket. Inside the blue jacket was a 16-page policy. The first page contained the policy declarations. The second page contained an election or rejection of uninsured motorist insurance, as required by the statutory notification procedure contained in section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...n the second page of the policy itself. The legislature, in its wisdom as to human behavior tendencies on the part of the citizens of the State of Florida, required such option as to uninsured motorist coverage to "be part of the notice of premium." Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes....

...iled to make an informed rejection of higher uninsured motorist coverage based on the evidence adduced below. Nevertheless, the judgment below must be sustained if the trial court correctly found that Northern failed to comply with the provisions of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes, "by not attaching the uninsured motorist coverage option to the notice of premium." It is the public policy of the State of Florida that uninsured motorist coverage should equal an insured's liability coverage unless there has been a knowing rejection by the insured of such coverage. See 31 Fla.Jur.2d Insurance, § 769 (1981). Bearing this in mind, the 1980 amendment to section 627.727, Florida Statutes, added the following language: Each insurer shall at least annually notify the named insured of his options as to coverage required by this section....

...In the present case, Hiers testified that he never looked past the front declaration page of the policy. He merely looked at the front page of the policy to see if it was the right insurance policy — as most people probably would do in reviewing a renewal of policy. For this reason, we hold that section 627.727(1) was not *1385 complied with, and the trial court was correct in its holding....

...ourt set off the portion of the workers' compensation award that had already been paid, reducing the jury award by that amount. Appellant objected, contending that the trial court erred in failing to set off the remaining approximately $73,000 under section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides, in pertinent part, that motor vehicle liability coverage "shall be over and above, but shall not duplicate, the benefits available to an insured under the workers' compensation law, persona...

...ability or automobile medical expense coverages; or from the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle or any other person or organization jointly or severally liable together with such owner or operator for the accident. (Emphasis supplied). § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1978). We have taken the position that only the underinsured motorist's automobile liability insurance should be set-off against the underinsured motorist coverage (consistent with the 1980 revision to Section 627.727) and not medical or personal injury protection payments unless the payments duplicate benefits available or received by the insured....

...We agree in this case, except for the $12,000 medical expense payment, that the other set-offs which pertain to workers' compensation payments received by Lobry, were properly "set-off" because if not allowed, Lobry would receive (in effect) "duplicate" benefits, contrary to Section 627.727....

...doubts as to whether he could collect under both the driver's policy and his own policy by claiming that the driver was an uninsured or underinsured motorist. Appellant further alleged doubt as to the extent of coverage permitted by Florida Statutes § 627.727 and as to his rights under an insurance certificate which did not specify the limits of liability for uninsured motorist coverage, while the policy itself set said limit at $10,000.00/$20,000.00....

...rder, under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. State Farm defended on the ground that Mrs. Clauson was not "legally entitled" to collect from We Try Harder and that there was therefore no UM coverage under its policy [2] and the applicable law. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...In the order, the trial court found that the coverage available on the policies issued to Mangual's parents for their personal vehicles did not apply because they "made an election to buy non-stackable uninsured motorist coverage in accordance with Florida Statute § 627.727(9)." Section 627.727(9) provides that if adequate notice to the insured is given: Insurers may offer policies of uninsured motorist coverage containing policy provisions, in language approved by the department, establishing that if the insured accepts thi...

...He points out that the language is contained in a paragraph describing stacking as opposed to non-stacking forms of coverage. Thus Mangual concludes, the clause only provides notice of a limitation on the amount of coverage available rather than notice of an exclusion from uninsured motorist coverage. In enacting subsection 627.727(9) the legislature altered the broad coverage requirements for class I insured persons stated in Mullis v....

...Perhaps that would be an impossible task, since even the appellate courts have had difficulty explaining stacking ramifications. [1] Yet logically an insured really cannot be said to knowingly give up rights without knowing what they are. In any event, the situation involved in this case is simple. Section 627.727(9)(d) permits insurers in this state to issue policies that do not provide uninsured motorist coverage to the insured or family members residing in the household who are injured while occupying any vehicle owned by such insureds for which uninsured motorist coverage was not purchased....

...e policy from broadening uninsured motorist protection to restricting such protection to vehicles specifically identified in an insurance policy. Respondent argues, on the other hand, that the scope of the uninsured motorist protection as defined by section 627.727 and interpreted by our decision in Mullis was not changed by the enactment of section 627.4132 in 1976....

...er than to provide for no coverage when the insured has no coverage on the vehicle involved in the accident." 376 So.2d at 21. We also agree with the Wimpee court's conclusion that Mullis does not control in this circumstance because it was based on section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1971), the uninsured motorist statute....

...es new obligations, or imposes new penalties. Alamo; State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla.1983); Seaboard Sys. R.R. v. Clemente, 467 So.2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So.2d 55, 61 (Fla.1995) (finding that section 627.727(10) could not be applied retroactively because it significantly altered the language used to determine fines imposed on a violator)....

...The family-household exclusion clause excluded liability benefits to her, and UM benefits were denied based upon the policy's provision that an uninsured auto is not a vehicle defined as an insured auto under the liability portion of the policy. In response, the legislature added section 627.727(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), to rectify the situation and provide UM coverage under that scenario....

...wards as additional insureds on the Alamo Rent-A-Car policy, with its restrictions limiting coverage to injuries sustained while occupying the rental vehicle, violates public policy. The public policy of this state is defined under Florida Statutes, Section 627.727(1) which provides: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in the state with respect to any specifically named insured or identified motor v...

...be *1110 over and above the benefits available to an insured under any motor vehicle liability insurance coverage and that the amount of underinsured coverage shall not be reduced by a setoff against any coverage, including liability insurance. See § 627.727(1), Fla....

...motorist exclusionary provision of the policy at issue. The Limitations of Our Holding State Farm urges us to affirm the trial court on the ground that State Farm was not required to offer Mr. Hodges underinsured motorist coverage that complied with section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2000), because the Oldsmobile was not registered or "principally garaged" in Florida during the relevant policy period....

...However, State Farm's duty to provide coverage is not at issue in this appeal. Rather, the issue is the application of Florida's public policy to invalidate an exclusionary provision. This difference does not require us to consider the meaning of "principally garaged" as it appears in section 627.727(1)....

...2d DCA 1980), a Georgia company issued an automobile to its employee, a permanent resident of Florida, for exclusive use in Florida. The insurance policy was issued in Georgia. We held that Florida's public policy operated to excuse the requirement of section 627.727(1) that the contract of insurance be "delivered or issued for delivery in this state" so that section 627.727(1) would apply to require the insurance company to increase the available uninsured motorist benefits when the automobile was principally garaged in Florida and operated by a Florida resident. Id. at 968-70; see also Strochak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 717 So.2d 453 (Fla.1998). Thus the issue in Decker concerned matters of coverage under the policy and section 627.727(1). In this case, coverage provisions are not at issue, and coverage would be available to the Roaches by operation of other provisions of Mr. Hodges' policy, not section 627.727(1)....

...USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 695 So.2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). While it is true that the UM carrier seeking such a set-off has the burden of establishing a duplication of benefits, see section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991); Galante, 695 So.2d at 457, the plaintiff has the initial burden of proving circumstances that would trigger UM coverage, i.e., a loss exceeding sums available from other sources....

...red motorist (UM) benefits. We reverse, finding that the UM policy's limitation of coverage to "owned" automobiles, where the corresponding liability policy extends coverage to "any" auto, improperly narrows the scope of UM coverage in derogation of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Because appellant was not driving a vehicle owned by Ed Morse, but was driving a customer's vehicle, Globe asserts that appellant is not entitled to UM coverage. We disagree. Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage must, by statute, accompany every automobile liability insurance policy. § 627.727(1), Fla.Stat....

...Rather, the definition of "covered autos" provided in the liability policy also determines the autos "covered" for purposes of mandatory UM coverage. Therefore, we reverse the summary *676 final judgment denying UM coverage and remand for further proceedings. FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(1) provides: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle regi...

...eded the limits of Universal's uninsured motorist coverage, the uninsured motorist coverage was never invoked. On June 22, 1988, the trial court entered an order of summary final judgment in favor of Universal. Morrison contends that Florida Statute 627.727, as amended in 1984, allows him to claim the U.M....

...4th DCA 1988) as authority for his position. Universal argues that the statutory definition of an uninsured motor vehicle only triggers U.M. coverage when the insurer providing liability has a limit in effect which is less than the U.M. coverage limits. § 627.727(3)(b), Fla....

...If, however, the tortfeasor had liability coverage limits equal to or greater than those contained in U.M. coverage, then no U.M. coverage would be available. Coleman v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Associations, Inc., 517 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1988) (applying the 1981 version of section 627.727); Bayles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 483 So.2d 402 (Fla. 1985) (applying the 1983 version of section 627.727); Bradley v....

...nce Company v. Taubler, 448 So.2d 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Excess underinsured coverage provided the full limit of U.M. protection in addition to the tortfeasor's liability coverage for an additional premium. The excess U.M. coverage was codified in section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...The effect of House Bill 319 was to require insurers to *427 offer only excess uninsured (underinsured) coverage. Excess uninsured motorist coverage thus became the only type of U.M. coverage required to be offered by insurers along with the larger premium that could be charged. In the 1983 version of 627.727(3)(b), the definition for "uninsured motor vehicle" was specifically tied to the standard U.M. coverage and thus had no applicability to excess underinsured coverage listed in 627.727(2)(b). The 1984 amendment effectively deleted the standard U.M. coverage and the higher priced excess became the norm. Subsection (2) was effectively rewritten and the language of (b) was moved into subsection (1). See § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (1987). For some unknown reason, section 627.727(3)(b) was never eliminated and as a result, considerable confusion has ensued. In the instant case, Morrison should have been able to pursue the $20,000.00 in U.M. coverage under the Universal policy because under the "excess" recovery method, now embodied in section 627.727(1) as the only type of U.M. coverage, the liability insurer's limits were allegedly less than the damages of the injured person. [2] Section 627.727(3)(b) never did apply as a threshold determination to be made in regard to excess underinsured coverage and thus it cannot apply now for the first time. Compare, Woodard v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Insurance Company, 534 So.2d 716, 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Notwithstanding the new amendment effective October 1, 1989, [3] the Shelby opinion is the better view of section 627.727 as amended in 1984....

...is of HB 319 and do not correctly express the intent of the legislature as it was recorded. See also, Marquez v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 534 So.2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). [4] The legislature intended the 1984 amendment to section 627.727 to incorporate, as the only type of U.M. coverage, excess coverage as previously codified in section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...coverage in the same policy. (Emphasis supplied). [2] Under the excess U.M. coverage, the only threshold question was whether the tortfeasor's liability limits were insufficient to cover all of the injured party's damages. [3] Chapter 88-370 amended section 627.727, and is to be effective October 1, 1989....

...his umbrella policy and that his $100,000 uninsured motorist policy could be increased. Without proper notification of such offer of UM coverage on the excess policy, an insured is entitled to the liability insurance as uninsured motorist coverage. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...Rather, the trial court's role is to interpret the statute, resolve conflicts in the evidence and be fair in the application of the statute to the facts. In the instant case, it is virtually conceded that, insofar as the umbrella policy is concerned, the notice to the insured of his options as to UM coverage under section 627.727(1) was not appropriate....

...brella policy. *230 In First State Insurance Company v. Stubbs, 418 So.2d 1114, 1115-16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), this court stated: We cannot agree, however, with the trial court's determination of First State's bottom limit of liability, i.e., $10,000. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1971), required First State to include uninsured motorist coverage in limits no less than the liability limits, unless rejected by the insured....

...Summary judgment was entered in Anatkov's favor, and his attorney was awarded $30,899.83 in fees and costs. Mercury appeals claiming (1) that its offer, made prior to Anatkov's settlement with State Farm and Salazar, to provide UM/UIM coverage upon payment of a $135 premium, precludes judgment in Anatkov's favor, see § 627.727(6)(a), Fla....

...Anatkov attorneys' fees. Anatkov cross-appeals the trial court's refusal to apply a risk multiplier when calculating the fee award. We disagree with both of Mercury's arguments and affirm. We also find no merit in Anatkov's argument on cross-appeal. Section 627.727(1) of the Florida Statutes requires every motor vehicle liability *627 insurance policy providing for bodily injury coverage to include uninsured motor vehicle coverage unless the insured has rejected that coverage in writing. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...That offer was conditioned on payment of a premium. The offer was not accepted because no premium payment was made. Anatkov did not need to accept this offer since he already had UM/UIM coverage by virtue of Mercury's failure to secure a valid written waiver before issuing his existing policy. See § 627.727(1), Fla....

...This is an appeal from a final summary judgment finding that Jerry G. Beckmeyer, Jr., was not entitled to uninsured motorist ("UM") benefits under his automobile insurance policy in force when he was killed in a motorcycle accident by an uninsured driver. At issue is whether section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2006), required Progressive American Insurance Company ("Progressive") to include information about UM coverage options in Mr....

...Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000), O'Brien v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 999 So.2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), *82 and find the court correctly interpreted the plain language of the statute to require only annual notice of UM coverage options. Under section 627.727(1), vehicle liability insurance policies must include UM coverage unless the named insured rejects such coverage in writing....

...The insurer shall notify the named insured at least annually of her or his options as to the coverage required by this section. Such notice shall be part of, and attached to, the notice of premium, shall provide for a means to allow the insured to request such coverage, and shall be given in a manner approved by the office. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...East-European Ins. Co., 921 So.2d 587, 595 (Fla.2006); Peachtree Cas. Ins. Co. v. Prof'l Massage Servs., 923 So.2d 548, 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citing Warren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1090, 1095 (Fla.2005.)) We do not read the plain language of section 627.727(1) to require that notice of UM coverage availability be sent more frequently than annually, even where, as here, the insured's policy renews every six months. The statute states only that such notice must be sent "at least annually." See Yzaguirre v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., Inc., 793 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (referring to the "annual notice" required by section 627.727(1)); Allianz Ins....

...ad entitled to set-off the Central National payment of $25,000 less appellee's attorneys' fees and costs of collection. In doing so the trial court erred. Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 363 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1978), specifically holds that Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975), intended that the coverage of the tortfeasor be considered as a complete set-off equal to the full amount paid....

...mpany, and the order denying her motion for rehearing. We affirm because it is undisputed that appellant settled her accident case with one of the tortfeasors *751 and released her without first notifying AIU and obtaining AIU's consent, contrary to section 627.727(6)(a), Florida Statutes....

...AIU filed an answer and affirmative defenses. When AIU later learned that Muth had settled claims and executed releases in favor of one of the tortfeasors, Karen Somma, without providing notice and seeking AIU's permission to settle, as required by section 627.727(6)(a), [1] AIU filed an amended answer alleging that appellant's claim was barred....

...Public Health Trust of Dade County, 473 So.2d 1297, 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. Appellant concedes that she did not obtain AIU's consent prior to entering into the settlement agreement and executing a release, as required by section 627.727(6)(a), Florida Statutes....

...urther, failed to show any compelling reasons or exigent circumstances to excuse the affidavit's tardiness, *753 the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for rehearing. Affirmed. FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(6)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: If an injured person ....

...The court granted summary judgment to State Farm, and the Porters initiated this appeal. State Farm argues that the Porters may not sue it because they failed to make a request for arbitration. This contention is without merit since the Porters correctly relied upon Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1977), [1] which calls upon the insurer to advise the claimant whether it will agree to a proposed settlement with the tortfeasor and his carrier and commence arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim....

...tion of the anti-stacking statute. Burt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 383 S.W.2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Kokay v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 380 So.2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). [4] The same rule would apply if the tortfeasor was underinsured since Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977), now defines an "uninsured motor vehicle" to include an underinsured one.

...admittedly not occupying the covered auto, or getting in or out of the covered auto, at the time of the accident, coverage was correctly denied. Id. at 1299. Lampkin asserts that to so construe the policy would be inconsistent with the terms *176 of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985), the version in force at the time of the accident....

...limits in their automobile insurance policy. We reverse. In 1970, the MacDonalds obtained an automobile insurance policy from St. Paul providing limits of $100,000/$300,000 of BI coverage and $10,000/$20,000 UM coverage. The policy was in force when section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1973), was amended, effective October 1, 1973, to provide that UM coverage could not be less than the limits of BI liability coverage in the same policy, unless the named insured elected otherwise....

...easor. Then, they proceeded with their claim against St. Paul. The MacDonalds alleged that Mr. MacDonald, named insured under the St. Paul policy, never rejected increased limits of UM coverage, and therefore, they were entitled to UM coverage under Section 627.727 in an amount equal to their BI liability limits....

...We think, however, that the court erred in concluding that the increased UM coverage was a material change in the MacDonalds' policy requiring a new rejection of the maximum limits of UM coverage available. As noted, the MacDonalds originally rejected UM coverage beyond the $10,000/$20,000 limit. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975), provided that an insurer was not required to obtain a new rejection of UM coverage when it issued a renewal policy....

...Therefore, the trial judge did not err in entering judgment on the verdict and in failing to direct a verdict for Manchester. Garcia v. Lujando, Fla.App. 1971, 253 So.2d 725; Tuz v. Burmeister, Fla.App. 1971, 254 So.2d 569, 571. Manchester's second contention is without merit. The applicable statute, § 627.727, Fla....

...(State Farm), which held that he had no uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage under his State Farm personal liability umbrella policy because he had rejected such coverage at the time he applied for the policy. Deciding cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that State Farm had complied with section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes....

...At no time after the initial application did State Farm raise or in any way revisit the question of uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. In making uninsured motorist coverage available to Mr. O'Brien at the time he applied for the umbrella policy in 1992, State Farm complied with one of its obligations under section 627.727(2) (1991). As he was free to do, Mr. O'Brien expressly rejected uninsured motorist coverage at that time. While the statute also requires the insurer to make such coverage available upon the written request of the insured, see § 627.727(2), Fla....

...Within three months of the accident, State Farm tendered checks for $400,000, the full amount of uninsured motorist coverage under the (stacked) automobile policies. At issue on appeal is the availability of (up to $1,000,000) of excess coverage under the umbrella policy. III. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, [3] governs the extent to which motor vehicle liability insurance policies delivered or issued for delivery in Florida must make uninsured motor vehicle coverage available....

...The parties agree that subsection (2) applies to umbrella policies and governs the umbrella policy at issue here. See Weesner v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 711 So.2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding umbrella policy governed by the provisions of section 627.727(2), but not section 627.727(1)); Tres v....

...Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 705 So.2d 643, 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (observing that subsection (1) applies to primary policies and "differs substantially" from subsection (2), which "deals with non-primary policies" such as an umbrella policy). Under section 627.727(2), an excess insurer's only duty with respect to its offer of uninsured motorist coverage is to "make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured," uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to the bodily injury limits contained in the policy or one million dollars. § 627.727(2), Fla. Stat. (2003); see also Tres, 705 So.2d at 645 (observing that "section 627.727(2) does not contain the same requirements" as section 627.727(1), but instead "only requires an issuer of a non-primary policy to notify an applicant of the availability of UM coverage"). *1084 Subsection (1) governs only those policies "which provide[ ] bodily injury liability coverage ... with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or principally garaged" in Florida. [4] § 627.727(1), Fla....

...Subsection (1) also requires the insurer to "notify the named insured at least annually of her or his options as to the coverage required by this section." Id. Subsection (2) explicitly provides that the requirements of subsection (1) do not apply to non-primary policies. See § 627.727(2), Fla....

...very in this state ... do not apply to any policy which does not provide primary liability insurance that includes coverage for liabilities arising from the maintenance, operation, or use of a specifically insured motor vehicle."). Subsection (2) of section 627.727, Florida Statutes, sets forth different requirements for excess policies not providing "primary liability insurance ......

...However, an insurer issuing such a policy shall make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured, limits up to the bodily injury liability limits contained in such policy or $1 million, whichever is less. § 627.727(2), Fla. Stat. (2003) (emphasis supplied). In Tres, the Third District explained the difference between subsections (1) and (2): Section 627.727(1) mandates that a primary policy include UM coverage unless an informed, knowing, written rejection of such coverage is made by the insured on the proper form....

...The purpose of this is "to assure that an insured appreciates the availability of UM coverage and makes a knowledgeable and deliberate decision to accept or reject it." Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So.2d 1026, 1029 (Fla.1991). On the other hand, section 627.727(2) does not contain the same requirements....

...following certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (as restated by the plurality) in the affirmative: Whether an excess carrier has a duty to make available the uninsured motorists (UM) coverage required by section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), to an insured under an existing policy on vehicles which had never been registered or principally garaged in Florida when any vehicle, covered or subsequently added, first becomes registered or princi...

...at 455 (emphasis supplied, footnote omitted). Here we are concerned with the same umbrella policy initially issued in Florida in 1992 to the same named insured, bearing the same policy number and providing *1087 coverage in the same amount. State Farm complied with the requirements of section 627.727(2) by making uninsured motorist coverage available to appellant at the time he applied for the umbrella policy in 1992....

...See Strochak, 717 So.2d at 457 (Wells, J., concurring) (concluding that the insurer's "duty to notify Rita Strochak of the availability of UM coverage under the excess policy arose when the excess policy was first delivered to her in Florida"). V. Relying on statutory changes to section 627.727 enacted in 1984, see Ch....

...e insured, UM limits up to the bodily injury liability limits contained in such policies. Hooper v. Zurich Ins. Co., 789 So.2d 368, 369-70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (quoting Fla. H.R., CS/HB 319 (1984) Staff Analysis (final June 21, 1984)). The language in section 627.727(1) relieving an insurer from the obligation to offer an insured the opportunity to reject uninsured motorist coverage for any policy which "extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy" as to which the insured had alre...

...een primary and non-primary automobile policies. See Ch. 80-396, § 1, at 1588, Laws of Fla.; see also Coney v. Gen. Ins. Co., 445 So.2d 671, 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The Legislature's failure, some four years later, to include comparable language in section 627.727(2), which exempts excess insurers from the requirements of subsection (1) altogether and imposes instead an entirely different requirement that such insurers "shall make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured," uninsured motorist coverage, § 627.727(2), Fla....

...Stat. (Supp.1984), cannot fairly be read to imply that an excess insurer must offer uninsured motorist coverage under subsection (2) under circumstances that a primary insurer need not. On the contrary, case law interpreting the pre-1980 version of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes, has no bearing on the application or interpretation of section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984). See Weesner, 711 So.2d at 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding excess policy governed by the provisions of section 627.727(2), not section 627.727(1)); Tres, 705 So.2d at 645 (observing that subsection (1) applies to primary policies and "differs substantially" from subsection (2), which "deals with non-primary policies" such as an umbrella policy)....

...But, as Pohlman itself and as other courts have noted, Pohlman is inapplicable in the context of determining whether the addition of a new vehicle to an existing policy creates a new policy requiring the insurer to offer the insured a new opportunity to reject uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to section 627.727....

...d in 1992 was ambiguous. The form rejection applies to "the policy applied for, all future renewals of the policy[,] and ... all replacement policies," but does not mention policies which "extend[ ], change[ ], [or] supersede[ ]" an existing policy. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...edes the umbrella policy. This argument misconceives the insurer's obligation under subsection (2), which is only to make uninsured motorist coverage "available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured." § 627.727(2), Fla. Stat. (1991). By making uninsured motorist coverage available to appellant when he initially applied for the umbrella policy in 1992, State Farm fulfilled its first — and what proved to be its only — obligation under section 627.727(2). The failure of the rejection form to track the statutory language of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2003), language which does not apply to excess policies such as the umbrella policy at issue here, does not render the rejection form ambiguous or in any way deficient....

...y including an excess or even an umbrella carrier, to abide by pertinent statutory requirements concerning offers or provisions of UM protection results in its being held to that coverage"). But State Farm complied precisely with the requirements of section 627.727(2) in the present case....

...nsured motorist limits need not be provided in or supplemental to any other policy which renews, extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy with the same bodily injury liability limits when an insured ... had rejected the coverage. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...The heading of the form shall be in 12-point bold type and shall state: "You are electing not to purchase certain valuable coverage which protects you and your family or you are purchasing uninsured motorist limits less than your bodily injury liability limits when you sign this form. Please read carefully." § 627.727(1), Fla....

...here in Florida, the policy was issued and delivered in Florida in 1992, and all renewal notices were mailed to appellant at his Florida address. [9] Appellant relies entirely on the absence of certain language in subsection (2) that does appear in 627.727(1), Florida Statutes....

...rom the insured for uninsured motorist coverage or for higher uninsured motorist limits) provide an insured another opportunity to reject such coverage in "any other policy which renews, extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy." § 627.727(1), Fla....

...An earlier version of subsection (1) provided only that the insurer need not provide uninsured motorist coverage previously rejected "in or supplemental to a renewal policy" but did not mention policies which extend, change, supersede, or replace existing policies, § 627.727(1), Fla....

...Waln, 395 So.2d 1211, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (citing U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Van Iderstyne, 347 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)); see also Coney v. Gen. Ins. Co., 445 So.2d 671, 672-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) ("Under prior case law, the test for determining whether Section 627.727(1) required an insurance company to afford the insured a new opportunity to reject uninsured motorist coverage was whether the original policy had been changed in any material respect. That determination was necessary because, under the previous version of Section 627.727, a new offer of uninsured motorist coverage was unnecessary only as to renewal policies....

...Hartford's policy. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and the trial court entered summary final judgment for Beem, and directed Hartford to submit to arbitration. The uninsured motorist statute applicable at the time of this accident was section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...1976), and as amended in 1980, so that instead of uninsured motorist protection following people, it attached to the specifically insured or identified motor vehicle. As support therefor, the appellant refers us to House Bill 319 [Ch. 84-41, Laws of Fla.], which amends section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...Appellant urges that even though this amendment post-dates Beem's accident, it was intended to clarify the legislature's previous actions and should be considered in construing the relevant provision of section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980). We are unpersuaded that the new section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...considered in interpreting the present statute, Ivey v. Chicago Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 494 *141 (Fla. 1982); Gay v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida, 59 So.2d 788 (Fla. 1952), we do not feel it is necessary here. Chapter 84-41, Laws of Florida [§ 627.727(2), Fla....

...A law is presumed to operate prospectively in the absence of a clear legislative expression to the contrary. Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1977). The general rule is that a statute speaks from the time it goes into effect. Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 363 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1978). Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1981) requires that uninsured motorist coverage be included on all policies delivered or issued for delivery in Florida for the benefit of those insured thereunder....

...the $25,000 underinsured motorist protection benefits provided in Allstate's policy. Allstate denied this claim on the ground that the appellant had failed to seek or obtain consent of her settlement with the tortfeasor as required by the policy and section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...Allstate's policy contains an exclusionary clause which excludes underinsured motorist benefits if the person entitled to those benefits settles with the tortfeasor without Allstate's consent. It is undisputed that the appellant did not submit any proposed settlement agreement to Allstate as required by this clause or section 627.727(6)....

...ED THE POLICY LIMIT FOR LIABILITY COVERAGE, ALSO RECOVER UNDER THE SAME POLICY FOR UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS, WHERE THE POLICY EXCLUDES THE INSURED VEHICLE FROM ITS DEFINITION OF "UNINSURED VEHICLE?" JOANOS, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statues (1989), provides a similar definition of an uninsured motor vehicle: "[it] shall include an insured motor vehicle where the insurer has provided 1....

...From her own policy, Rudnick had $10,000 in PIP coverage and $5,000 in medpay coverage remaining at the time of trial. Allstate argues that the trial court erred by refusing to set these amounts off against the verdict. In support of its argument, Allstate cites to sections 627.727(1), 627.736(3), and 768.76(1), Florida Statutes (1993). Section 627.727(1), provides that uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage shall not duplicate, the benefits available to an insured under ......

...justly due." Black's Law Dictionary, 1128 (6th ed.1990). Indeed, there is nothing in the everyday usage of "payable" that would require its application to future expenses and benefits rather than accrued benefits not yet paid. Id. Nothing in the language of section 627.727(1), requires that the term "available" be accorded any different meaning than we gave to the same word in White, even though that case involved a different statute....

...The issue presented is whether the execution of a form, which rejects uninsured motorist coverage, absolves the insurance agency and its agent of liability for negligently failing to procure uninsured motorist coverage. We find that it does, since section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (2007), creates a conclusive presumption that an informed and knowing rejection of uninsured motorist coverage was made....

...necessarily give rise to a conclusive presumption that the insured had a full understanding of uninsured motorist coverage. At a rehearing, the trial court reversed its ruling after determining that the Adams case was based on an earlier version of section 627.727 and that the current law stated that execution of the form waiving uninsured motorist coverage created a conclusive presumption that the rejection of coverage was informed and knowing....

...“In reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss, this court’s gaze is limited to the four corners of the complaint. The facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the pleader.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Section 627.727(1) requires that uninsured motorist coverage be applicable to all, unless “an insured named in the policy makes a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy.” § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). The statute was amended in 1984 to include the following: “If this form is signed by a named insured, applicant, or lessee, it shall be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing acceptance of such limitations.” § 627.727(9), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also Auger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 516 So.2d 1024, 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (discussing the 1984 amendment to section 627.727). The conclusive presumption of the statute forestalls appellant’s claim that he was not offered or informed of uninsured motorist coverage. “The presumption created by § 627.727 cannot be rebutted by testimony that the person signing the rejection form did not read it....

...ured motorist coverage against the insurance company, but appellant argues that, based on Adams , a claim against the insurance agent could still be valid. We believe that Adams is inapplicable, since the First District relied on the 1982 version of section 627.727, 1 which did not contain the current clear declaration that, if the uninsured motorist rejection form is signed, it “shall be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing acceptance of such limitations.” § 627.727(9), Fla....

...r for the damages he or she would have been able to recover if the offending motorist had maintained a policy of liability insurance. Mullis, 252 So.2d at 234; see also Carguillo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 529 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1988). As such, section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1993), allows the insured the same recovery which would have been available to him or her had the tortfeasor been insured to the same extent as the uninsured motorist coverage....

...of Florida; he thereby rejected the defendant's contrary contention that Home had merely continued the effectiveness of an already existing policy issued while Mendelson had been a resident of New York. Pursuant to this finding, the court held that Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975), was applicable and that, since Home had not offered Mendelson $1,000,000 in uninsured motorists coverage as the statute requires, the policy was deemed automatically to provide that coverage, notwithstanding the $25,000 UM limits stated on its face....

...The judgment indicated that $30,000 of uninsured motorist coverage was available to the Belmonts and specifically noted that "the initial election of non-stacked coverage was in full force and effect at the time of the accident... and by the terms and conditions of the policy and Florida Statute, § 627.727(9) the coverage is limited to $30,000." The Belmonts appeal both the judgment and the denial of their cross-motion for summary judgment. Subsection 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that uninsured motor vehicle coverage shall be equal to the bodily injury liability coverage of a motor vehicle policy unless an insured "makes a written rejection of [such] coverage" in whole or part....

...t be provided in or supplemented to any other policy which renames, extends, changes, supersedes or replaces an existing policy with the same bodily injury liability limits unless an insured requests higher uninsured motorist coverage in writing. Subsection 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1997), allows the insurer to provide the insured with the less costly option of "non-stacked" uninsured motorist coverage in the following manner: In connection with the offer authorized by this subsection, insur...

...4th DCA 1979), this Court specifically ruled that a passenger in an automobile who was injured by the negligence of a driver of another automobile may stack his own uninsured motorist coverage with that of his host driver in order to declare the negligent tortfeasor an "uninsured" motorist pursuant to Section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...This is precisely the amount of the tortfeasor's liability coverage which was actually paid to the Searles. Under such circumstances, there was no valid uninsured motorist claim because the uninsured motorist coverage did not exceed the liability coverage. See Section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Appellee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based upon the grounds that the Denker vehicle was neither uninsured nor underinsured in that (1) the owner of the vehicle, Denker, had coverage from Gateway Insurance Company and (2) that the concept of "underinsured" motor vehicles arose out of Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1973), which was not in effect at the time of the accident. Judgment on the pleadings was granted and this appeal follows. After carefully reviewing the record and briefs, and having heard arguments of counsel, we are of the opinion that the final judgment must be affirmed. Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1973), which defines an uninsured motor vehicle to include an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof, "has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the l...

...470); Barbers (Ch. 476); Cosmetologists (Ch. 477); masseuses (Ch. 480); pest controllers (Ch. 487); private detectives (Ch. 493); solicitors of charitable funds (Ch. 496); real estate brokers and salesmen (Ch. 475); and numerous other occupations. [4] § 627.727, Fla....

...Therefore, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Capital and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] The claim arose from the terms of the insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident in 1989. Thus, the 1989 version of section 627.727, Florida Statutes, which governs underinsured motor vehicle insurance coverage, applies to this case.

...er occurrence. The Appellant brought this suit against her uninsured motorist carrier, the appellee, contending that because her initial recovery had been diminished, she was entitled to full coverage under her uninsured motorist policy, in spite of Section 627.727 of the Florida Statutes. The Appellant and Appellee filed Motions for Summary Judgment. Summary Judgment was entered in favor of the Appellee on October 27, 1976. Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes, provides: "(a) For the purpose of this coverage, the term `Uninsured motor vehicle' shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof: (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the insured person provided under his uninsured motorist coverage". Paragraph (2)(b) of Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, is explicit in providing that uninsured coverage becomes applicable only when the uninsured policy limits exceed that which is available from the tortfeasor....

...In an action for declaratory judgment the trial court determined appellant is entitled to nothing from her insurance company. The purpose of underinsured motorist coverage is to protect persons who suffer their injuries from the tort of one who has decided to inadequately provide for those he may injure. Section 627.727(2)(b) Florida Statutes (1975)....

...as already collected $10,000.00 from the tortfeasor. The insurance contract between the parties here defines the liability of appellee to appellant. It provides $15,000.00 for appellant if the tortfeasor has no insurance and by statutory definition, Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975) this also applies to underinsured vehicles....

...the tortfeasor's therefore she is not entitled to recover because the statute says she can only recover if the tortfeasor's policy limits are "less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under (her) uninsured motorist's coverage." Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Ferreiro, an Argentine citizen, rented a car from Budget-Rent-A-Car in Miami, she purchased an optional "Rental Supplemental Liability Insurance Excess Policy" [1] from Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, in which she was the insured and which provided $1,000,000 limits of liability insurance. Although section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1997) specifically provides that [a]n insurer issuing [an excess motor vehicle policy] shall make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured, limits [of UM co...

...4th DCA 1988); Cohen v. American Home Assurance Co., 367 So.2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 342 (Fla.1979). The carrier contends and the trial judge held, however, that the fact that, as a self-insured rental company, Budget was not required, under section 627.727( 1 ) to offer or provide primary UM coverage on the short term rental, see Diversified Servs., Inc. v. Avila, 606 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1992), negates the section 627.727( 2 ) obligation of the carrier to offer that coverage. We totally disagree. Indeed, because the one thing simply has nothing to do with the other, see Diversified, 606 So.2d at 364-66; Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Mitchell, 164 Misc.2d 899, 626 N.Y.S.2d 401 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) (applying § 627.727 and Diversified Services, Inc....

...under any workmen's compensation law, disability benefits law or any similar law. The trial court agreed with GEICO, and we agree as well. Craft urges that the policy provision in question is contrary to the public policy of Florida as expressed in Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975), which provides in pertinent part: The coverage provided under this section shall be excess over but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured under any workmen's compensation law, disability...

...The Graff court explained: [P]ersonal injury protection benefits are payable under § 627.736 in amounts determinable irrespective of fault in order to compensate the recipient for losses formerly assessable only against the party at fault; on the other hand, disability benefits payable under § 627.727 are not insurance against all loss due to personal injury by an automobile but are insurance for only so much of the loss as is incompensable because of the financial irresponsibility of the party at fault....

...1982), and the other cases relied on by appellant. None of them is on point, nor do we believe that this opinion is in conflict with any of those cases. Accordingly, the final summary judgment in favor of GEICO is AFFIRMED. OTT, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur. NOTES [1] We are aware that section 627.727 was amended in 1979....

...insured vehicle because his employer, the United States Government, was liable for his negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The sole issue is whether the Hansen vehicle was "an uninsured vehicle" within the meaning of that term as used in F.S. 627.727....

...That case held that, if an insurance company fails to procure an insured's rejection of uninsured motorist coverage, the insured is entitled to such coverage in the same amount as the bodily injury limits. Lumberman's at 444. It was undisputed that NAIC never procured such a rejection from Baxley. However, section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that "[w]hen the named insured ......

...not required to obtain a new election. Baxley responded that, because the CIGNA policy had expired on November 5, 1988, 48 hours before the NAIC policy became effective on November 7, 1988, the NAIC policy did not replace "an existing policy" within section 627.727(1)....

...A final judgment was thereafter entered in Baxley's behalf, awarding him $900,000 in uninsured motorist coverage under the NAIC policy. Terms in a statute which are unambiguous need no interpretation. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Smith, 556 So.2d 393 (Fla. 1990). Section 627.727(1) unambiguously provides that "[w]hen the named insured ......

...NAIC also urges various interpretations of "existing policy" favorable to its position, but none are consistent with the plain meaning correctly applied by the trial court. *444 We therefore find that the trial court correctly held that the NAIC policy did not replace "an existing policy" within the meaning of section 627.727(1), and therefore that NAIC was obligated to obtain a rejection of uninsured motorist coverage from Baxley....

...Colford, an insured under the underinsured motorist coverage portion of an insurance policy issued by appellee, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest (Hartford), is whether an insured who sues the underinsured motorist carrier and the alleged underinsured tortfeasors in a civil action pursuant to section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991), may be prevented from disclosing to a jury that the underinsurance coverage is available to pay a verdict favorable to the insured. We hold that she may be prevented from such disclosure. Our decision complements those of two other districts construing section 627.727(6)....

...danger that jurors may be influenced if they know the defendant has liability insurance coverage. Id. at 1023. We recognize that, in Nail, this court was considering section 627.7263 a nonjoinder statute, and, in the instant case, we are considering section 627.727(6) a required joinder statute....

...Midwest Mutual Insurance Co., 223 So.2d 550 (Fla.3d DCA 1969), and an applicant may not contest his signed rejection of coverage by contending that he signed the rejection without reading it, Alejano v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 378 So.2d 104 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), under section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1971) uninsured motorist coverage must be offered....

...but the First District Court of Appeal reversed. The Newton court distinguished Boynton in part and reasoned that the threshold requirements did not have to be met in uninsured motorist claims as with regular PIP claims because of the policy behind section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...The court also found that its decision was in accord with Boynton because the uninsured motorist insurer's subrogation rights are not prejudiced if they are required to pay the claims of their insureds. Id. at 1312. *1171 In Boynton the supreme court held that under section 627.727(1), the uninsured motorist coverage carrier stands in the same shoes as the uninsured motorist, "and can raise and assert any defense that the uninsured motorist could urge." Boynton, 486 So.2d at 557....

...gislature always intended what the statute now provides; that is, uninsured motorist coverage need not be offered an insured except (1) upon an initial application for liability insurance coverage and again (2) at the time of annual renewal thereof. § 627.727, Fla....

...red automobile liability endorsement" to the business policy in question provided motor vehicle liability protection to the named insureds under the terms of the endorsement. Ellsworth v. Ins. Co. of North America, 508 So.2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...the person claiming UM benefits fell outside the definition of insured under the policy. That is not the case with this policy. DOWNEY and WARNER, JJ., and WESSEL, JOHN D., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] The policy in question was issued prior to the 1984 amendment of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes.

...shall include those damages which are a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section by the authorized insurer and may include an award or judgment in an amount that exceeds the policy limits. In 1992, the Legislature passed section 627.727(10), which provides: The damages recoverable from an uninsured motorist carrier in an action brought under s....

...Absent a determination of the existence of liability on the part of the uninsured tortfeasor and the extent of the plaintiff’s damages, a cause of action cannot exist for a bad faith failure to settle. (Emphasis added). Applying section 627.727(10), Laforet reiterated that the initial action for first-party benefits, which sets the plaintiff’s damages arising from an accident, determines the extent of the plaintiff’s damages in a first party bad faith case: Section 627.727(10) provides that the damages recoverable from an uninsured motorist insurance carrier in a bad faith action brought under section 624.155 and the 1990 amendment thereto shall include the total amount of a clai...

...benefits and accident medical expense benefits. The complaint charges that the certificate of insurance did not contain a specific exclusion of uninsured motorist coverage nor had it been rejected in writing. This allegation is of no import because § 627.727, F.S....

...secured by the agent on another carrier's letterhead. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that Orion Insurance Company did not have a valid uninsured motorist rejection form on the policy issued to Ms. Cox, as required by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...The policy premium was calculated from the information on the application forms which lowered Ms. Cox's premium since uninsured motorist coverage was waived. Orion Insurance Company contended that Ms. Cox received the coverage for which she freely bargained. According to section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991), an uninsured motorist rejection form must: (1) be approved by the Florida Insurance Commissioner; (2) explain what uninsured motorist coverage is; (3) discuss the limits that are applicable unless coverage...

...She had an opportunity to clarify any policy questions as to carrier or policy terms at the time she received the policy. Having waived uninsured motorist coverage with American Skyhawk, there is no indication that she would not have also waived it with Orion Insurance Company. Section 627.727(1) provides that if a form in compliance with the statutory requirements "is signed by a named insured, it will be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing rejection of coverage or election of lower limits on behalf o...

...nderlying claim for UM benefits. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 32 So.3d 163, 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). In contrast to a claim for UM benefits, an insured who prevails on a bad faith claim may recover damages in excess of the policy limits. Fla. Stat. § 627.727 (10)....

“the Legislature has expressly stated that section 627,727(10) is remedial and is to be applied retroactively”)

...The Defendant argues that application of the Valiant policy exclusionary language hinges upon a genuine factual issue that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact. Further, Defendant argues that the exclusionary provision in the Valiant Insurance policy is inapplicable pursuant to Florida Statutes, section 627.727(9)....

...endant is not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under the policy. *1193 B. Statutory Compliance The Defendant next contends that Valiant's exclusionary language is unenforceable absent compliance with the notice requirement of Florida Statutes Section 627.727(9). We disagree. First, the Defendant is not the named insured and is therefore not entitled to notice under F.S. 627.727(9). DeLuna v. Valiant Ins. Co., 792 F.Supp. 790 (M.D.Fla.1992). Second, because liability coverage does not extend to the accident at issue under the Valiant policy, the issue of compliance with section 627.727(9) is not triggered. In Carbonell v. Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, 562 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), the court discussed the knowing acceptance requirement set forth by section 627.727(9)....

...In Universal's suit for declaratory judgment in which Morrison filed a counterclaim, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Universal. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the premise that the 1984 amendment to section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), permitted Morrison to claim uninsured motorist benefits notwithstanding the fact that the limits of Smith's liability coverage were greater than the limits of Register's uninsured motorist coverage....

...tual Insurance Co. Morrison filed a motion for rehearing in which he asserted that Register's policy contained a 1985 endorsement which was apparently intended to comply with what the legislature thought it was accomplishing by its 1984 amendment to section 627.727....

...with Universal's position that was set forth in a 1982 endorsement which was also part of Universal's policy. In his answer, Morrison admitted the existence of this provision. However, in addition to asserting that he was entitled to coverage under section 627.727, Morrison pled an affirmative defense that Universal was guilty of bad faith "in that contrary to their written provisions of their policy, they are aware that the Defendant's, LARRY WAYNE MORRISON, claim is for excess or underinsured...

...ent, Morrison submitted to the court a memorandum of law in which he specifically referred to the 1985 policy endorsement which redefined uninsured motor vehicles. He asserted not only that he was entitled to recover because of the 1984 amendment to section 627.727 but also because of the 1985 endorsement to Universal's policy....

...Young, Jr., of Bradley, Johnson, Nelson, Young & Horton, Lake Wales, for appellees. HOBSON, Judge. This appeal seeks review of the order of the trial court denying the motion of American Fire and Casualty Company to dismiss the suit for declaratory judgment as to it and determining that the phrase from § 627.727(1), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 71-88, Laws of Florida 1971, which reads, "The coverage provided under this section shall be excess over but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured ......

...The same identical question was considered in Summers v. Jackson, Fla.App.4th 1975, 307 So.2d 235. The Summers case was not published at the time the eminent trial judge in the case sub judice entered his order. It was held in Summers as follows: "Finally, appellants' reliance upon § 627.727(1), F.S....

...uninsured”); Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Kelps, 372 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (“[N]o UM coverage exists if the offending motorist is not actually un- or underin-sured.” (citing Hayston v. Allstate Ins. Co., 290 So.2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974))). Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2009), describes UM coverage and provides in relevant part: The coverage described under this section shall be over and above, but shall not duplicate, the benefits available to an insured ......

...ude an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof: [[Image here]] (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the total damages sustained by the person legally entitled to recover damages .... § 627.727(3) (emphasis added)....

...In Trezza the court construed the phrase "who lives with you" as it applied to a person in the armed forces. The court held that the insured's son qualified as a resident relative for uninsured motorist benefits. The court reasoned: The legislative purpose behind section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985), is to provide coverage to innocent parties....

...ty coverage of Roberts, as one of the alleged tort-feasors, for the benefit of Sutton. If GEICO had insured Roberts, it could not limit its public liability exposure by an exclusion of the sort asserted by GEICO against Sutton. GEICO was required by § 627.727, Fla....

...257, 356 N.E.2d 452 (1976); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ford, 537 S.W.2d 138 (Tex.Civ.App. 14th Dist. 1976), rev'd 550 S.W.2d 663 (Tex. 1977) [on ground that insurer waived its right to consent before its insured could settle with another insurance carrier]. [5] See § 627.727(6), Fla....

...Although insured at the time of the accident by Gateway, the tort-feasor's automobile would be an uninsured-motor vehicle in event of insolvency of Gateway within one year of the date of the accident, according to a provision to that effect in the Geico policy, and by § 627.727(3), Fla....

...The court held in favor of Geico, and granted it a summary judgment, in which there was included a discussion of the question and of the applicable statutes and authorities, as follows: "The issue before the court is: What is the meaning of `insolvent insurer' under the present Florida Uninsured Motorists Statute, Section 627.727....

...Fass, 243 So.2d 223 (Fla.[App.], 1971); Bartholomew v. Glenns Falls Insurance Group, 241 So.2d 698 (Fla.[App.], 1970). "It should be noted that the definition of `insolvency' as contained in Section 631.011 of the Florida Statutes was not incorporated in the 1971 uninsured motorists statute, being Section 627.727 of the Florida Statutes, but rather the definition as set forth in Section 631.54(5) was incorporated in the uninsured motorists statute....

...judication of insolvency of the insurer, nor did it consider the time of such adjudication, and is therefore of little assistance in reaching a determination in the instant case. "The defendants rely upon the 1973 Florida Uninsured Motorist Statute, Section 627.727, which defines `insolvent insurer' by referring to Florida Statute Subsection 631.54(5), which has been referred to hereinabove....

...Florida Insurance Company Association, 257 So.2d 9 (Fla., 1971). In that case the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the `FIGA' statute, which involved the definition of `insolvent insurer.' "THEREFORE, the Court concludes that the 1971 Florida Statute 627.727 governs this case and is dispositive of the issue of an interpretation of `insolvent insurer.'" We find need to add little to the foregoing opinion of the trial court, which we hold correctly decided the question involved. The appellants argue that while the trial court's decision of the question may be in accordance with § 627.727(3) and (4) and § 631.54(5) Fla....

...nded complaint. Appellant's complaint was for arbitration on uninsured motorist benefits under a garage keepers policy. Appellee moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that a garage keepers policy does not fall within the statutory mandates of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987), providing for uninsured motorist coverage. However, in Coleman v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, 517 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1988), the supreme court considered a garage keeper's policy of insurance and determined that uninsured motorist coverage under section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987), was afforded. It is the substance of the policy and not the title which controls whether or not section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987), applies....

...See Chicago Insurance Company v. Dominguez, 420 So.2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Fulton, 362 So.2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The garage keepers policy covers liability for motor vehicle accidents. Therefore, compliance with section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987), was required....

...The policy provides coverage to Minagorri for damages caused by an accident with the operator of an "uninsured motor vehicle." When an insolvent insurance company cannot pay the total amount of damages caused by its insured tortfeasor, the insured tortfeasor is considered an "uninsured motorist." See § 627.727(3), Fla.Stat....

...Because the tortfeasor's insurance company was insolvent, Minagorri is clearly entitled to benefits in accordance with the policy provisions. In conclusion, neither the statutory provisions regarding UM coverage nor the terms of the Hartford insurance policy require Minagorri to proceed first against FIGA. See § 627.727, Fla.Stat....

...The moped was not owned by the insured party or the named insured on the policy and neither of them owned another uninsured automobile. What we have here is an attempt by the appellant to exclude uninsured motorist's coverage based solely upon the mode of transportation. This constitutes an impermissible exclusion under Section 627.727 Florida Statutes (1979)....

...Hooper was a passenger in an automobile not owned by Termi-nix but by a fellow Terminix employee (Kenneth House), who was also acting in the course and scope of his employment with Terminix. Mr. Hooper asserts that *369 he is entitled to UM benefits under section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1995). Section 627.727(1), in pertinent part, provides: Section 627.727 Motor vehicle insurance; uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage; insolvent insurer protection....

...ages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom. (Emphasis supplied.) The trial judge, by the partial summary judgment entered for Zurich, determined that section 627.727 was not applicable to afford Mr. Hooper UM coverage because Mr. House’s vehicle was not “specifically insured or identified” by Terminix’s policy with Zurich. We agree. Section 627.727 was amended in 1984....

...eby protect providers of comprehensive general liability and umbrella/excess policies from being drawn into coverage requirements intended to be applicable only to motor vehicle policies. The legislative analyses and history of the 1984 amendment to section 627.727 provides some credence to Mr....

...o the bodily injury liability limits contained in such policies. In interpreting statutory enactments, however, we are required to examine and apply the plain wording and meaning of a statute. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 556 So.2d 393 (Fla.1990). Section 627.727 is not limited in its application to comprehensive general liability or umbrella/excess policies....

...In fact, the statute mentions neither but refers instead to “motor vehicle liability insurance” policies. We therefore conclude that Mr. House’s vehicle was not a “specifically insured or identified” vehicle under Zurich’s policy insuring Terminix so as to entitle Mr. Hooper to UM coverage under section 627.727. In doing so, we observe that while not pertinent to their decisions, the First and Third Districts, in dicta, apparently agree with the interpretation of section 627.727 by the trial judge and this court....

...Felton, Jr., of Boyd, Jenerette, Staas, Joos, Williams & Felton, Jacksonville, for appellee. SHIVERS, Judge. Appellants, plaintiffs in the proceedings below, appeal from a final summary judgment in their suit for declaratory judgment and damages. We affirm the judgment below, and hold that the "uninsured motorist statute", Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), does not apply to personal injury protection auto insurance policies....

...Sallade, as an insured under his wife's PIP policy, submitted a claim thereunder, appellees denied the claim. Subsequently, in March 1984, appellants filed the instant suit wherein they sought a judgment that the subject policy afforded them uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983). After both sides moved for summary judgment, the Circuit Court entered final summary judgment for appellee Colonial in August 1984. This appeal followed. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, requires that uninsured motorist coverage be offered to anyone who purchases automobile liability insurance. Wiener v. Avis Rent A Car, 318 So.2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Notwithstanding the plain meaning of its language, appellants argue that section 627.727 should now apply to PIP policies as well. Appellants point out that in 1961, when section 627.727 (originally numbered section 627.0851) was enacted, liability coverage was mandatory in Florida....

...the mandatory coverage. Appellants therefore contend that in order to fully effect legislative intent, uninsured motorist coverage should be offered with all PIP policies. We disagree. The Legislature has had fourteen years to amend the language of section 627.727 if it had so desired. PIP insurance is not liability insurance. By the plain meaning of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), uninsured motorist coverage need not be offered with PIP policies....

...In addition, because the undisputed facts demonstrate that State Farm was not prejudiced, we conclude that it is unnecessary to remand the case for further proceedings relating to a determination on the question of prejudice. ANALYSIS Pursuant to section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2007), insurers issuing motor vehicle policies in Florida are mandated by statute to offer uninsured motorist coverage unless the insured has expressly rejected the coverage....

...The term “uninsured motor vehicle” includes an underinsured motor vehicle, which occurs where the liability insurer has provided lower bodily injury liability limits -9- than the damages sustained by the person legally entitled to recover damages. § 627.727(3)(b), Fla....

...In addition, we have stressed that the statute is not designed “for the benefit of insurance companies or motorists who cause damage to others.” Young v. Progressive Se. Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 80, 83 (Fla. 2000) (citing Brown v. Progressive Mut. Ins. Co., 249 So. 2d 429, 430 (Fla. 1971)). Indeed, section 627.727 was intended to place the injured party in the same position as he or she would have been had the tortfeasor been insured. See Moore v....

...As was the case here, after an insured has been injured in an accident with an uninsured or underinsured motorist, an insured will generally settle a claim with the uninsured or underinsured motorist with approval from the insured’s UM coverage carrier. See § 627.727(6)(a), Fla....

...d by an additional body of law other than that expressed by the majority. Every motor vehicle liability insurer in this State is statutorily mandated to offer uninsured motorist coverage unless the insured has expressly rejected the coverage. See § 627.727, Fla....

...The declaratory judgment action was part of a multicount complaint containing other counts for negligence, loss of consortium and underinsured motorist benefits. Margaret Dalola brought an action for declaratory judgment against GEICO alleging that it had failed to comply with section 627.727(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...it had refused to approve the offer and to tender the amount offered. Because the Second District Court of Appeal, in State Farm Mut. Aut. Ins. Co. v. Hassen, 650 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), approved, 674 So.2d 106 (Fla.1996), had determined that section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992) was unconstitutional as applied to its case, Dalola alleged that she was in doubt as to her rights under section 627.727(6)(b)....

...dicing her claim to underinsured motorist benefits. The Dalolas later filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to Margaret Dalola's declaratory judgment action. GEICO filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action on the ground that section 627.727(6)(b) was unconstitutional. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a final declaratory judgment in which it granted GEICO'S motion to dismiss. Relying upon Hassen, the court found that section 627.727(6)(b) was unconstitutional and that GEICO did not have to comply with the statutory settlement guidelines....

...hether the Valiant Insurance Policy extended general liability coverage to Plaintiff as a resident family member thereby necessitating the availability of uninsured motorist protection to Plaintiff and whether Defendant violated notice provisions of 627.727(9) Florida Statutes thereby invalidating Plaintiff's exclusion from uninsured motorist protection under the Valiant policy....

...The Court finds that because there was no liability coverage applicable to the particular accident at issue, Plaintiff is likewise not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under the Defendant's policy. Valiant Insurance Company v. Webster 567 So.2d 408 (Fla.1990). B. Statutory Construction Florida Statutes Section 627.727(9) (1989) requires that notice be given to the named insured of a policy if the policy contains certain limitations on uninsured motorist provisions....

...uninsured motorist coverage for injuries occurring while occupying a vehicle owned by the named insured or a family member but not insured for uninsured motorist protection under the policy is a limitation for which notice should have been given. F.S. 627.727(9)(d)....

...Id. at 439. This case can be distinguished because the party denied coverage for uninsured motorist benefits was the named insured who was in a car which he owned, but did not have insured under the policy. The purpose of the notice provisions of F.S. 627.727 is to protect the named insured....

...ailable to the insured when driving an owned vehicle. If general liability was available, the insured would be entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under Mullis and Valiant. Plaintiff is not the named insured and is not entitled to notice under F.S. 627.727....

...er Valiant, is not extended protection under uninsured motorist provisions of the policy. *793 The Court finds that the absence of notice of limitations on uninsured motorist coverage is irrelevant because Plaintiff is not entitled to notice under F.S. 627.727 and the Plaintiff is not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage because liability portions of Defendant's policy do not apply to the particular accident at issue....

...If the self-insured governmental agency is treated the same way as a standard liability insurer, as State Farm argues it should be, State Farm is entitled to a credit of $100,000 against the verdict, which together with the other credits State Farm claims, will reduce the judgment to an amount less than $100,000. See § 627.727(6)(c), Fla....

...motorist benefits from State Farm. Mr. Siergiej eventually reached an agreement with the Sheriff to settle his claim for $50,000, which was less than the $100,000 in self-insured liability funds available from the Sheriff. Following the dictates of section 627.727(6), Mr....

...Sier-giej pursuant to the Sheriffs program of self-insurance. State Farm argues it is entitled to a credit for the full $100,000, minus the amount previously paid to Mr. Siergiej for his property damage claim. In support of this argument, State Farm points to section 627.727(6)(e), which provides that an underinsured motorist insurer is entitled to a credit against its insured’s total damages in the amount of the underinsured motorist’s liability policy in cases where it has given its insured permission to settle with the underinsured motorist in an amount that does not fully satisfy its insured’s claim. Alternatively, State Farm points to section 627.727(1), which limits uninsured motorist coverage to amounts “over and above ... the benefits available” to the insured from the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle. State Farm also relies on section 627.727(1) in support of its contention that it was entitled to credit for the amounts Mr. Siergiej received in workers’ compensation and PIP benefits. Mr. Siergiej counters that section 627.727(6)(c) is inapplicable in this case because it governs settlements with liability insurers, not self-insured entities such as the Sheriff and that, therefore, State Farm is not entitled to credit under that section. Mr. Siergiej at least tacitly concedes, however, that under section 627.727(1), State Farm is entitled to a credit for the $50,000 he received from the Sheriff. Finally, Mr. Siergiej contends that while section 627.727(1) does provide for credits for PIP and workers’ compensation benefits, it does so only where the damages awarded by the jury duplicate those benefits. He contends State Farm did not prove that the amounts awarded by the jury duplicated the PIP and workers’ compensation benefits he had received. Section 627.727 regulates under-insured and uninsured motorist coverage. Subsection 627.727(6) outlines the procedure an injured insured must follow if he elects to settle with a liability insurer and its insured in an amount that does not fully satisfy his claim for personal injuries so as to create an underinsured motorist claim....

...1 *526 Subsection (c) states that “[t]he underin-sured motorist insurer is entitled to a credit against the total damages in the amount of the limits of the underinsured motorist’s liability policy in all cases to which this subsection applies.” § 627.727(6)(c)....

...Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co., 753 So.2d 80 (Fla.2000), and argues that because Young held that a self-insured motorist with a certificate of self-insurance with limits of liability lower than the damages sustained by the injured person is not an underinsured motorist as defined in section 627.727, subsection (6) is inapplicable; thus, State Farm is not entitled to a credit for the Sheriffs $100,000 in self-insurance....

...According to Young , as a self-insured, the Sheriff is considered to be “statutorily uninsured,” not underinsured: [Bjecause a self-insurer is not a liability insurer under the Florida Insurance Code, a self-insured motorist cannot be considered an underinsured motorist based on the statutory language of section 627.727(3) that limits the definition of underinsured motorists to those having liability insurers. [[Image here]] ... Because the Legislature defined an underinsured motorist in section 627.727(3) and left the term “uninsured” otherwise undefined in section 627.727(1), we must read these provisions together in order to arrive at a consistent and harmonious interpretation of the uninsured motorist statute....

...Section 672.727(3)[sic] sets forth the circumstances where an insured motor vehicle will be considered “uninsured,” such as when the vehicle is underinsured because the “liability insurer” provided limits of liability lower than the damages sustained. See § 627.727(3)(b). Reading section 627.727(3) in pari materia with section 627.727(1) leads to a logical and harmonious statutory interpretation of the term “uninsured” as a motorist without a “liability insurer,” who is not considered statutorily “underinsured” pursuant to 627.727(3)....

...the Sheriffs self-insurance. It also relies on subsection (1) as the basis for its claim that it is entitled to a credit for the PIP and workers’ compensation benefits Mr. Siergiej received. Subsection (1) states that the coverage provided for in section 627.727 is to cover the difference, if any, between the benefits available to the insured from other sources and the damages the insured has sustained, up to the limits of the policy: The coverage described under this section shall be over an...

...to consider the meaning of “benefits available” as used in subsection (1). In United Services Automobile Ass’n v. Phillips, 740 So.2d 1205, 1208-09 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this court discussed the meaning of the phrase “benefits available” in section 627.727(1) and stated that “benefits available” equated to a “legally enforceable right to recover which arises upon the occurrence resulting in the insured’s injury.” In Phillips , the injured party had settled with the tortfeasor,...

...In conclusion, we agree with State Farm that it is entitled to credit against Mr. Siergiej’s damages for the $26,780 in medical expenses and $20,000 in past lost wages paid by workers’ compensation, the $5000 in PIP benefits, and the $50,000 settlement from the Sheriff. Under section 627.727(1), Mr....

...It gives the underin-sured carrier thirty days to either authorize the settlement and waive its right to subrogation or, if it wishes to retain its right to subrogation, withhold authorization and pay to its insured the amount of the settlement offer. § 627.727(6)(a),(b)....

...ant. Angones, Hunter, McClure, Lynch & Williams and Christopher Lynch, Miami, for appellee. Before JORGENSON, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Because the insurer, Allianz Insurance Company, failed to comply with the annual notice requirements of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991), [1] we find that the trial court properly held that the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is equal to the liability limits set forth in the policy. See Patterson v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 564 So.2d 1149, 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Ruiz v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 441 So.2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Accordingly, we affirm the orders under review. Affirmed. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The insurer shall notify the named insured at least annually of his options as to the coverage required by this section....

...ompletely untenable." Allen v. Estate of Dutton, 384 So.2d 171, 175 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1373 (Fla.1980). In the instant case, Amerisure argues entitlement to section 57.105 fees because Appellant failed to meet the requirements of section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991), for joining an underinsured motorist carrier in a suit against the tortfeasor. In the alternative, Amerisure claims that such fees are warranted because Appellant was required to arbitrate any claims against it. Both arguments must fail. Section 627.727(6) does not mandate that joinder of the tortfeasor and underinsured motorist carrier can only occur by adhering to the requirements as set forth in that section....

...rson and $30,000 per accident, the insurer was entitled to set off the available amounts of liability insurance against the uninsured motorist coverage, which effectively exhausted the latter coverage. The holding was based upon an interpretation of Section 627.727(1) Florida Statutes (1977), which provides in part: ......

than “excess,” the trial court relied upon section 627.-727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), which was

...We thus agree with Travelers that the statute, although providing how collateral sources are treated under some circumstances, is inapplicable here. Clearly it is not the exclusive method for a health insurer to seek reimbursement pursuant to a policy provision. The Boyles also rely on the following emphasized provisions in section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1993), our UM statute: The coverage described under this section shall be over and above, but shall not duplicate, the benefits available to an insured under any workers' compensation law, personal injury protect...

...1st DCA 1991); Chmieloski v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 563 So.2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); and Quirk v. Anthony, 563 So.2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), that the mere fact that the form actually utilized arguendo departs from the one statutorily provided by section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...Florida law, the uninsured motorist anti-stacking provision contained in the Randos’ motor vehicle insurance policy . . . is unenforceable [because] the insurer, the Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), failed to satisfy the informed consent requirement of section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (2005).” Rando v....

...Two main issues were presented during the proceedings. The initial question was whether there had been a material change in the insurance policy issued in 1975 or whether this policy was merely a renewal policy not requiring a new rejection or selection of UMI coverage. Under Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1981), if an insured previously rejected UMI coverage or selected a lower limit, that selection will carry over to a renewal policy and a new selection is unnecessary....

...McCall of Agres, Cluster, Curry, McCall & Briggs, P.A., Ocala, for appellee. DAUKSCH, Judge. Hartford Insurance Company appeals a final summary judgment which determined that Chapter 84-41, Laws of Florida was applicable to an insurance policy issued to appellees. Chapter 84-41, section 627.727, Florida Statutes requires an insurance policy with an effective date on or after October 1, 1984 to have a heading in bold type informing the insured that the policy has uninsured motorist limits less than the bodily injury limits....

...torist carrier over the liability of the uninsured motorist tortfeasor or the amount of damages incurred, or (b) that the insured would not have been entitled to such an award had he obtained a judgment against the uninsured motorist tortfeasor; (2) Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1977), makes such an award inapplicable only in the single instance, more particularly described in the above statute, where the insured or his personal representative brings suit against his uninsured motorist c...

...Our sole duty is to enforce the statute here according to its plain and unambiguous terms, a duty which we perform today by sustaining the instant attorney's fee award. State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1973); 30 Fla.Jur., "Statutes" § 223 (1974). B It is further urged by Florida Farm that Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1977), precludes an award of attorney's fees in this case....

...such action, the liability insurer's coverage shall first be exhausted before any award may be entered against the uninsured motorist insurer, and any such award against the uninsured motorist insurer shall be excess and subject to the provisions of s.627.727(1)....

...loys the term "section," when used in the text of a brief or opinion, rather than the term "subsection." See Fla.R.App.P. 9.800. Beyond that, no other action by an insured against an uninsured motorist carrier is mentioned in any other subsection of Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977), so that necessarily the action referred to herein must be the action previously described in Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...[3] III We have examined the other arguments raised by Florida Farm upon this appeal *101 and find them to be without merit. The order under review is, accordingly, Affirmed. DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge, concurring. If, as the majority suggests, the final sentence of Section 627.727, subsection (6), "......

...I would much prefer the open admission that an ambiguity is created by the placement of this sentence within the subsection, while the very language of the sentence purports to qualify any action under the section. Since, as the majority points out, the only action under Section 627.727 is that described in subsection (6), we resolve this ambiguity by reading section as subsection....

...Graff, 327 So.2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); see e.g., Rutkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 195 So.2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), aff'd, 199 So.2d 705 (Fla. 1967). [2] The enacting legislation, Chapter 77-468, § 30, Laws of Florida, which added subsection (6) to Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977), employs the technically correct terminology of "section" and "subsection," but this technical distinction was not carried over in the actual language of subsection (6)....

...ich has reached an opposite result on this issue. Spaulding v. American Fire & Indemnity Co., (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (case no. 80-1328, opinion filed November 4, 1981) (6 F.L.W. 2343). It is our view that the court therein has read the last sentence of Section 627.727(6), Fla....

...COOK, JACK H., Associate Judge. Appellant, State Farm, appeals from that portion of a Final Judgment finding that Appellee, Lori Sagumeri, is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (1987). We hold that such an award is prohibited by section 627.727(8), Florida Statutes (1987), and accordingly reverse....

...State Farm did not contest coverage and prior to the trial, it filed an offer of judgment which was accepted by Sagumeri. Under section 627.428(1), an insured is entitled to an award of attorney's fees against her own insurer when suit is brought on the insurance policy and the insured prevails. However, section 627.727(8) provides as follows: The provisions of s....

...nless there is a dispute over whether the policy provides coverage for an uninsured motorist proven to be liable for the accident. The crucial question is what meaning should be ascribed to the phrase "any action brought pursuant to this section" in section 627.727(8)....

...American Fire & Indemnity Company, 412 So.2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), rev'd on other grounds, 442 So.2d 206 (Fla. 1983) and Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Quinones, 409 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), Sagumeri argues that this phrase *666 applies only to the type of action described in section 627.727(6), which is the only type of action specifically provided for in section 627.727. At the time of the decisions in Spaulding and Quinones, the limitation on attorney's fees in section 627.727 appeared in subsection 6 and read as follows: The provisions of s....

...did not carry insurance than he would be in if the tort-feasor did carry insurance. In the former situation he would recover his attorney's fees as well as his damages, while in the latter, he would be limited to his damages without attorney's fees. Section 627.727 creates a duty of insurers to offer uninsured motorist coverage in this state. The statute also particularly describes the manner in which such coverage must be offered as well as the damages recoverable in uninsured motorist actions. When the breadth of section 627.727 is considered, along with its amendment after the Quinones and Spaulding decisions, we believe the most reasonable interpretation of subsection 8 is that it is meant to limit attorney's fees to those actions for uninsured motorist benefits where the insurance company denies coverage....

...1169 (1937), the Supreme Court addressed the meaning of the phrase "pursuant to" and noted that it is defined as "`acting or done in consequence or in prosecution (of anything); hence, agreeable; conformable; following; according.'" Considering the scope of section 627.727, we believe that it is appropriate to say that an uninsured motorist action is brought pursuant to, i.e., as a consequence of, that statute....

...Varner, Jr., of Kohl, Springer, Springer, Varner, Mighdoll & Salnick, Palm Springs, for appellee. GLICKSTEIN, Judge. This is an appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of the insurer. We reverse and remand with direction to enter final judgment for the insureds. In 1980 the Legislature amended section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...efore, as a matter of law, his exclusion from uninsured motorists coverage is invalid. Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 252 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1971); Incardona v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 494 So.2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...sion of judgment, the court “no longer has jurisdiction over this case or its subject matter regarding any claim ... in excess of the policy limits, which if there is such a claim, must be litigated as a separate suit on damages as contemplated by § 627.727(10), Florida Statutes.” Safeco also cited Government Employees Insurance Company v....

...On November 7, 1981, he added comprehensive collision coverage to the existing policy. It is undisputed that plaintiff was not again offered uninsured motorist coverage at the time the collision coverage was added. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, concluding as a matter of law that: The provisions of F.S. 627.727(1) apply to automobile liability insurance and not to collision insurance....

...Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Sheffield, 375 So.2d 598 (3d DCA 1979). While we agree that summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate in this case, our affirmance is for reasons other than as stated in the judgment. The applicable statute is Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1981), [1] which provides in relevant part: 627.727 Automobile liability insurance; uninsured vehicle coverage; insolvent insurer protection....

...ction with a policy previously issued to him by the same insurer. Each insurer shall at least annually notify the named insured of his options as to coverage required by this section... . [e.s.] Under prior case law, the test for determining whether Section 627.727(1) required an insurance company to afford the insured a new opportunity to reject uninsured motorist coverage was whether the original policy had been changed in any material respect....

...United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 399 So.2d 1051, 1054-55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Sheffield, 375 So.2d 598, 600 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). That determination was necessary because, under the previous version of Section 627.727, [2] a new offer of uninsured motorist coverage was unnecessary only as to renewal policies....

...4th DCA), rev. denied, 407 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 1981) (insurer not required to re-offer UM coverage where policy change was a substitution of automobiles having no effect on bodily injury liability coverage). As noted above, however, the legislature amended Section 627.727(1), effective October 1, 1980. Act of July 9, 1980, Ch. 80-396, § 1, Laws of Fla. 1587 (codified at § 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1981))....

...Liberty Mutual also argues that the trial court made two erroneous evidentiary rulings. We summarily deny Liberty Mutual's challenge to the evidentiary rulings. However, we reverse because we find that Liberty Mutual was entitled to the statutory presumption as a matter of law. Under section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991), the amount of UM coverage is equal to the amount of bodily injury liability purchased by an insured, unless the insured rejects UM coverage or selects lower limits of UM coverage. See Chmieloski v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 563 So.2d 164, 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). With regard to the rejection or selection of UM coverage, section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991), specifically provides: The rejection or selection of lower limits shall be made on a form approved by the Insurance Commissioner....

...In the instant case, the insurance policy had bodily coverage in the amount of $750,000. However, Liberty Mutual presented a signed rejection form that selected UM coverage of $20,000. It is undisputed that the rejection form complied with the requirements of section 627.727(1)....

...And, in her cross-appeal, Cirillo-Meijer argues the trial court erred in directing a verdict on the permanency threshold thus taking the issue of non-economic damages from the jury. We find merit in GEICO's argument concerning the set-off, but affirm the directed verdict on the permanency threshold. Set-Off Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, authorizes an injured party to settle with the other driver and his liability insurer for less than the amount of the damages claimed, but requires the injured party to give the UM carrier notice of the settlement and gives the UM carrier the right to a set-off against "total damages," defined as "the full amount of damages determined to have been sustained by the injured party, regardless of the amount of underinsured motorist coverage." § 627.727(6)(a)-(c), Fla....

...there is no uninsured motorist coverage under the circumstances of this case. We reach this result because the insured party with the uninsured motorist coverage herein, Barbara Clinton, was not injured by an "uninsured motor vehicle" as defined by Section 627.727(3), Florida Statutes (1987). [1] *1288 First, we conclude that "the 1984 amendments to section 627.727, Florida Statutes, did not change the definition of an uninsured motor vehicle enunciated in section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1983)," and that "an uninsured motor vehicle continues to be a vehicle for which the limits of bodily injury liability for its insured are less than the limits applicable to the injured person's uninsured motorist coverage." Marquez v....

...Because the motor vehicle which injured Barbara Clinton herein carried two bodily injury liability policies which, all told, had limits exceeding the Clintons' uninsured motorist coverage limits, it is clear that Barbara Clinton was not injured by an "uninsured motor vehicle" under Section 627.727(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...or motorist becomes insolvent, and the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association [FIGA] steps into the shoes of this insolvent insurer, making good on the claim of the injured party, the latter has not been injured by an "uninsured motor vehicle" under Section 627.727(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...become insolvent." § 631.57(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987). This being so, it follows that Barbara Clinton was not injured by a motor vehicle with a liability insurer which was "unable to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured," § 627.727(3)(a), Fla....

...fied therein because of insolvency; or (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under uninsured motorist's coverage applicable to the injured person." § 627.727(3), Fla....

...Apparently, the Johnsons had standard UM coverage on the four vehicles prior to that date. The record does not even explain why the Johnsons had a reason to sign the form on April 26, 1993. Their claim that no one explained the blank application form to them stands unrefuted at this time. *250 Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1993), purports to make the named insured's signature on an approved selection form a conclusive presumption that the selection of reduced uninsured motorist coverage was informed and knowing....

...See § 627.736(4)(d)(4)(a), Fla. Stat. Likewise, Hartzog was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits. Uninsured motorist coverage is provided for the protection of persons insured under a given policy, and it attaches to the insured person, not the insured vehicle. See § 627.727(1), Fla....

...d claimed to have UM coverage of $100,000/$300,000 because the insurer, in its renewal notice of premium due, failed to notify the insured of his UM coverage options and failed to provide the insured the means to request such coverage as required by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...In fact, the evidence shows that the insured returned the tear-off portion of the revised renewal notice dated October 27, 1982. Therefore, he failed to rebut the presumption of receipt of Form 1258. [3] We also find that this insurer's Form 1258 complies with section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes, notwithstanding that the notice of UM coverage options was not on the same piece of paper as the notice of premium (renewal notice)....

...We do not pass on whether the "fairly debatable" standard should apply in Florida, an issue of first impression raised by appellant, as this case is resolved on other grounds. We further reject appellant's contention that the trial court erred by granting the LaForets' post-trial motion for additur, based upon amended section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...violation of a law of this state. The total amount of the claimant's damages are recoverable whether caused by an insurer or by a third-party tort-feasor. The Legislature explained in Ch. 92-318, 1992 Fla.Laws 3151: The purpose of subsection (10) of section 627.727, .. . relating to damages, is to reaffirm existing legislative intent, and as such is remedial rather than substantive. This section and section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes, shall apply to all causes of action accruing after the effective date of section 624.155, Florida Statutes. We find the express intent of the Legislature to be that this statute have retroactive application. Nonetheless, we certify the following question as one of great public importance: WHETHER AMENDED SECTION 627.727(10), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP....

...Linda McMullen of McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A., Tallahassee, and Peter J. Valeta of Sonnenschein, Carlin, Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. THOMPSON, Judge. Mary and Denny White, the plaintiffs below, appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of Allstate Insurance Company. We affirm. Section 627.727 requires that all automobile insurance policies issued on Florida vehicles must include uninsured motorist (UM) coverage unless such coverage is rejected in writing by the insured....

...n your bodily injury liability limits when you sign this form. Please read carefully." If this form is signed by a named insured, it will be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing rejection of coverage or election of lower limits. Section 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (1984). The Whites contend: (1) the conclusive presumption contained in § 627.727, Fla....

...ct; and (3) a conclusive presumption is unconstitutional per se. It is uncontroverted that the rejection or selection of UM coverage form used by Allstate was the form approved by the insurance commissioner and that it met all of the requirements of § 627.727....

...PURCHASING UNINSURED MOTORISTS LIMITS LESS THAN YOUR BODILY INJURY LIMITS WHEN YOU SIGN THIS FORM. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY." (Emphasis added.) It is uncontroverted that Mary White signed the form rejecting UM coverage. *969 The presumption created by § 627.727 cannot be rebutted by testimony that the person signing the rejection form did not read it....

...particularly true of the document in question which contained a warning and notice in large type that it should be read carefully. In Bankers Ins. Co. v. Vasquez (Vasquez I), 483 So.2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), a UM coverage rejection case involving § 627.727 prior to the 1984 amendment, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and concluded that the defendant insurance company's motion for directed verdict should have been granted saying: Common sense dictates that the best...

...Absent any evidence establishing that the Moores did not knowingly and voluntarily sign the rejection form, the trial court erred in not granting the motion for directed verdict. Id. at 896. (Emphasis added.) Although it purports to be an absolute conclusive presumption, § 627.727 is not unconstitutional per se....

...Second, once the elements of a valid consent are established they may be properly rebutted only by a showing of fraud. Id. at 1001. In the instant case there was no evidence of fraud, forgery, or other extraordinary circumstances. The conclusive presumption of § 627.727 meets the constitutional test set forth in Parikh....

...e only issue to be resolved was the liability of Palm Beach County. Following a jury verdict in favor of Palm Beach County, the Brushes filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. At issue in this appeal is the dilemma of reconciling section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991), which provides for the joinder of the underinsured motorist carrier as a party defendant along with the underinsured tortfeasor, see generally Wardrop v....

...ch insurer is otherwise properly joined." Id. at 309. In Krawzak, the insurance company was both the liability insurer and the UM carrier; therefore, by statute, the plaintiff had a direct cause of action against the insurance company. Id.; see also § 627.727(6), Fla....

...nding lawsuit. Id. at 247. *816 In approving our decision in Krawzak and disapproving Colford, the supreme court recently held that the jury should be aware that a UM carrier, which is properly sued and joined in an action against a tortfeasor under section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991), is a necessary party in the case....

...Because the resolution of this fact issue may be determinative of coverage in this case, the question constitutes a genuine issue of material fact that should have precluded entry of summary judgment in favor of Progressive. Therefore, we reverse the final summary judgment. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1999), which concerns UM coverage, states in part: The insurer shall notify the named insured at least annually of her or his options as to the coverage required by this section....

...Hiers, 504 So.2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Conversely, when the insurer has sent the required annual notices to the insured in compliance with the statute, the insured is bound by the original election of reduced UM coverage: [The] issuance of the section 627.727(1) notification, coupled with the [insureds'] failure to act upon that notice, binds the [insureds] to the uninsured motorist coverage set forth in the policy ......

...d only questions of law exist. Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 643 (Fla.1999). In this case, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Progressive sent the annual notices regarding UM coverage, as required by section 627.727(1)....

say bad-faith actions should be conducted. Section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes (2008), specifically

...The term "uninsured motor vehicle" by definition now includes an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist's coverage. Section 627.727(2), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...policy. The Swans purchased the so-called “Honda policy” in 2001. Unlike the Acura policy, the Swans did not reject UM coverage on the Honda vehicle in writing. The Swans therefore received stacked UM coverage in the Honda policy as required by section 627.727 of the Florida Statutes; as required they paid an additional premium for this coverage....

...for stacked UM coverage over the less expensive non-stacked UM coverage. We again disagree. Not only does this argument reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between “stacked” and “non-stacked” UM coverage as set forth in section 627.727, but it also ignores the fact that this Court rejected this same argument in Collins, 922 So.2d at 353 . Section 627.727(1) mandates that insurers offer UM coverage in all automobile insurance policies....

...2 By operation of this *518 statute, the insured receives stacked UM coverage unless the insured either makes a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy, or the insured elects to accept non-stacked UM coverage from the insurer. § 627.727(1), (9) Fla....

...Stat. (2010). While the policy premium for non-stacked coverage is at least twenty percent less than the premium for stacked coverage, non-stacked coverage is subject to numerous coverage limitations that are not applicable to stacked coverage. See § 627.727(9)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat. (2010). These limitations include not just the inability to add together (or “stack”) the UM liability limits of two or more motor vehicle policies — which is the primary focus of the appellants — see § 627.727(9)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010), but also the restriction that non-stacked coverage does not apply to an insured who is injured “while occupying any vehicle owned by such insured[ ] for which uninsured motorist coverage was not purchased.” § 627.727(9)(d), Fla....

...e Acura, then he and his wife would only be able to recover $100,000 per person from the Honda policy if they were occupying the Honda. There would be no UM coverage whatsoever if they were occupying the Acura pursuant to the limitation set forth in section 627.727(9)(d)....

...coverage of another owned automobile. That is not the only benefit of stacked coverage. Even with one automobile, should the insured have an uninsured motorist claim, stacked coverage provides certain benefits above those received with non-stacked. Section 627.727(9)(a)-(e) delineates the limitations in uninsured motorist coverage, in addition to the limitation of not being able to stack the coverage from one vehicle onto another, when non-stacked insurance is obtained for a twenty percent decrease in premium. When the insured purchases stacked coverage, the limitations of section 627.727(9)(a)-(e) do not apply thereby giving the insured certain benefits for the twenty percent additional premium even when only one vehicle is owned....

...benefits on the Acura policy and affirm summary final judgment in favor of State Farm. . For purposes of this appeal, the only relevant claims are those against State Farm seeking an additional $200,000 in stacked UM benefits on the Acura policy. . Section 627.727(1) provides, in relevant part: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified...

...red thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom. . The limitations non-stacked coverage set forth in section 627.727(9)(a)-(e) are as follows: (9) Insurers may offer policies of uninsured motorist coverage containing policy provisions, in language approved by the office, establishing that if the insured accepts this offer: (a) The coverage provided...

...According to the insurance policy, coverage commenced on December 1, 1983. Appellants assert that the above facts do not conclusively establish an informed rejection by Mrs. Riggsby of her statutory right to UM coverage in an amount equal to that of bodily injury liability coverage. We agree. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983) provides in pertinent part: [2] (1) * * * However, the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable when, or to the extent that, any insured named in the policy rejects the coverage in writing....

...ereafter, block # 8 of the application appears as follows: REJECTION OF UNINSURED MOTORISTS (FAMILY PROTECTION) COVERAGE The undersigned insured and the Bankers Insurance Company agree that in accordance with the provision of Florida Insurance Code, Section 627.727 Part X of Chapter 627, which permits the insured named in the policy to reject the uninsured motorists (family protection) coverage, the undersigned insured does hereby reject such coverage, being the coverage provided for the protect...

...sue of uninsured motorist coverage under the West American policy, i.e. in the event there was no UM coverage over the minimum (as urged by West American), there would be no underlying basis for the third party action. [2] In the past several years, Section 627.727 has undergone a number of changes....

...Of course, the instant case is governed by the 1983 version of the statute and our summary of the above legislative changes is admittedly of limited significance to this opinion. However, we have found it helpful in our review of the pertinent cases construing Section 627.727 to be cognizant of the particular version of 627.727 involved in each case. In our review of the pertinent cases and the possible effects of the legislative changes to Section 627.727, we note that in Bankers Insurance Company v....

...atute to which we are sure the Fourth District intended to refer. [W]e are cognizant of the revisor's comment to this statutory amendment which makes it clear no change in the law was intended... . 483 So.2d at 443. Actually, the only change made in Section 627.727 by Chapter 85-62 was the addition of one word....

...[5] The Vasquez insurance application, including the rejection form, is conveniently reproduced in the Fourth District's opinion at 483 So.2d 441 and 442. [6] By our holding, we are not suggesting that a rejection form in a case which is governed by the statute (627.727) as it existed prior to the Chapter 84-41 amendments ( supra, footnote 2) must be "unequivocal, unmistakable and plainly worded" in order for there to be the requisite knowing rejection....

...tion against GEICO and the underinsured driver. In April and May 2016, GEICO filed two summary judgment motions, arguing that (i) Perez's automobile policy did not provide UM coverage to Perez while riding his motorcycle, and, alternately (ii) under section 627.727(1) of the Florida statutes (2013), GEICO was entitled to a conclusive presumption that Perez had rejected UM coverage under this automobile policy by virtue of the electronically signed UM rejection form. Perez filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that (i) GEICO's online process for rejecting UM coverage was invalid because it did not comply with the requirements of section 627.727(1), and (ii) GEICO was not entitled to section 627.727(1)'s conclusive presumption that Perez had rejected UM coverage because GEICO's UM rejection form failed to comply with the statute....

...Though not set forth in the lower court's summary judgment orders, the hearing transcript reflects that the trial court limited the UM coverage issue for trial to whether Perez had made a knowing, oral rejection of UM coverage. In so ruling, the trial court rejected GEICO's argument that, even if GEICO was not entitled to section 627.727(1)'s conclusive presumption so as to prevail at the summary judgment stage, GEICO could nevertheless introduce the UM rejection form at trial to prove that Perez had knowingly rejected UM coverage in writing....

...cies, even though Omar had UM coverage on the subject vehicle through a different insurer. Omar , 632 So.2d at 215 -16 . For these reasons, GEICO was not entitled to entry of summary judgment on this first ground. 2. The UM rejection form contains a section 627.727(9)(d) exclusion from UM coverage for non-scheduled vehicles Next, GEICO argues, for the first time on appeal, that Perez's automobile policy *350 does not provide UM coverage for the accident because of an exclusion that is contained...

...cenario ... where there is coverage but for an exclusion." 7 Because GEICO did not raise this issue below, it was waived. See Omar , 632 So.2d at 216 ("There is no mention of an informed, knowing rejection of uninsured motorist coverage [pursuant to section 627.727(9)(d) of the Florida Statutes ] in Allstate's motion and amended motion for summary judgment, nor in its memorandum of law in support of its motions and the pretrial compliance statement....

...We hold that the effect of the exclusionary clause will not be considered for the first time on appeal."). Moreover, even if this issue had been properly preserved, GEICO did not present sufficient evidence below that would entitle it to entry of summary judgment. Omar , 632 So.2d at 216 -17 . While section 627.727(9)(d) of the Florida Statutes (2013) does allow an insurer to offer automobile policies that exclude UM coverage for vehicles that are not listed on the policy, the record is (obviously) devoid of a policy containing the language appr...

...the statutorily authorized language excluding non-scheduled vehicles from UM coverage. For these reasons, GEICO was not entitled to entry of summary judgment on this second ground. 3. The electronically signed UM rejection form entitles GEICO to the section 627.727(1) conclusive presumption that Perez rejected UM coverage Finally, GEICO argues that the Perezes' daughter electronically signed the UM rejection form online on behalf of her father, thus entitling GEICO to the conclusive *351 statutory presumption that Perez rejected UM coverage in the automobile policy. Section 627.727 provides, in relevant part: [T]he coverage required under this section is not applicable when, or to the extent that, an insured named in the policy makes a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy.......

...limits when you sign this form. Please read carefully." If this form is signed by a named insured, it will be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing rejection of coverage or election of lower limits on behalf of all insureds..... § 627.727(1), Fla....

...(2013) (emphasis added). At the summary judgment hearing, the trial court found that even though the instant UM rejection form (identified as M-9-FL (11-96) ) had been approved by Florida's Department of Insurance Regulation, the form failed to comply with section 627.727(1) because the form failed to track the precise language of the statute....

...form included the language " BODILY INJURY LIMITS ," instead of " BODILY INJURY LIABILITY LIMITS ," and the language " PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY " instead of " PLEASE READ CAREFULLY ." We conclude that the trial court was correct as a matter of law. Section 627.727(1) sets forth four independent requirements that a UM rejection form must meet before the conclusive presumption applies: [A]n uninsured motorist rejection form must: (1) be approved by the Florida Insurance Commissioner; (2) explain...

...erage which protects you and your family or you are purchasing uninsured motorist limits less than your bodily injury liability limits when you sign this form. Please read carefully." Orion Ins. Co. v. Cox , 681 So.2d 760 , 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ; § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). Here, GEICO's UM rejection form complied only with the first three requirements. That the Department approved the form did not obviate section 627.727(1)'s requirement that the disclaimer contain specific language....

...ject to construction"). We realize that this is a harsh result given that, in all material respects, GEICO's UM rejection form complies with the statute, and GEICO has used this Department-approved form over an extended period of time. Nevertheless, section 627.727(1) is unambiguous and unequivocally provides that the conclusive presumption applies only if the form includes the specific, quoted language of the statute....

...UM coverage when he procured the subject automobile policy. Muhammed v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 582 So.2d 768 , 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) ("[T]he mere fact that the [UM rejection] form actually utilized arguendo departs from the one statutorily provided by section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...hrough evidence of an insured's oral rejection of UM coverage at the time the policy is procured. Fortunately, in this case, we need not reach the validity of either an insured's knowing, oral rejection of UM coverage, or an insured's oral waiver of section 627.727(1)'s written UM rejection requirement....

...It has always been GEICO's position that Perez made a knowing, written rejection of UM coverage after Perez told GEICO's sales representative that he did not want UM coverage during the April 2013 phone call. Indeed, at oral argument, GEICO stated the issue for the jury in this case should be as stated in section 627.727(1), i.e., whether Perez made a written rejection of coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy....

...ed testimony at trial that there had been both written and oral rejections of UM coverage."). The same holds true here, even though the instant UM rejection form was insufficient to afford GEICO the conclusive presumption of UM rejection provided in section 627.727(1)....

...0), then Perez would be entitled to "stack" the UM policy limits of the three vehicles ($50,000 each) when making a claim for UM benefits ($150,000). Perez paid no such UM premiums on his automobile policy. Nevertheless, as will be discussed infra , section 627.727(1) of the Florida Statutes requires that the insured receive stacked UM coverage in an automobile policy unless the insured either rejects UM coverage in writing or elects to accept non-stacked UM coverage....

...In 1987, in response to the Mullis case, the Florida legislature amended Florida's UM statute to allow insurers issuing motor vehicle liability insurance policies to exclude UM coverage for injuries to insureds occupying a vehicle for which no UM coverage was purchased. See § 627.727(9)(d), Fla....

...State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , 719 So.2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) to support its argument that GEICO was entitled to rely upon the UM rejection form solely because the Department had approved it. Those cases, however, concerned application of section 627.727(9) which, unlike section 627.727(1), does not set forth any specific disclaimer language that a UM rejection form must contain with respect to the various limitations on UM coverage that the insurer may impose in an automobile policy....

...The trial court also found that GEICO's online click-through process of having the insured electronically sign the UM form without having to first open the blue hyperlink rendered the esignature process ambiguous, and did not provide the required notice under section 627.727(1). Given our determination that GEICO is not entitled to the conclusive presumption because the instant UM form failed to track the notice language set forth in section 627.727(1), we need not, and therefore do not, reach this issue....

...Bigman of Smith Hood Bigman, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. The trial court's order of summary judgment in favor of appellee is AFFIRMED. See Wolf v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 34 So.3d 81, 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("We do not read the plain language of section 627.727(1) to require that notice of UM coverage availability be sent more frequently than annually, even where ......

...Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate Judgment and for Sanctions (Doc. S — 218) is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate the Judgment and it is otherwise DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on October 22,2015. . Pursuant to Florida Statutes, § 627.727(1), Geico was required to offer uninsured motorist benefits ("UM Benefits") as part of the Policy....

...caused by owners or operators” of underin-sured vehicles, id. (citing Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 740, 744 (Fla.2002)). . In the UM Coverage Action, Batchelor could seek her "total damages” regardless- of her UM Limits. See Fla. Stat. § 627.727 (6) (defining "total damages” as "the full amount of damages determined to have been sustained” by the insured); see also Woodall v....

...See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boynton, 486 So.2d 552, 557-58 (Fla.1986). Ultimately, the judgment entered against Geico in the UM Coverage Action must credit Batchelor for the Windsor and PI Payments, and it could not exceed the UM Limits, See Fla. Stat. § 627.727 (6)(c)....

...In Florida, the damages recoverable in ‘a bad faith claim under § 624.155(1 )(b)(1) include "the total amount of. the claimant’s damages, including the amount in excess of the policy limits,” interest, attorney’s fees and costs. See Fla. Stat., § 627.727(10) (emphasis added); see also id. § 627.727(6); Macola v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 953 So.2d 451, 456 (Fla.2006). Such damages are recoverable whether they are caused by "an insurer or a third-party tortfeasor.” See Fla. Stat. § 627.727 (10)....

...lopathy noted did not correlate with the Araj Report. (See Doc. 222, pp. 187, 195, 198-99.) Nonetheless, Maldonado testified that she evaluated the UM Claim “as if” Batchelor breached the PI Requirement. (See Doc. 222, pp. 192-94). . Pursuant to § 627.727(6)(b), if an insurer does not authorize its insured to settle with an underinsured tortfeasor ’ pursuant to § 627.727(6)(a), then the insurer must pay its insured “the amount of the written offer from the underinsured” tortfeasor’s insurer. In making this payment to its insured, the UM Benefits insurer preserves its “subrogation rights” against the tortfeasor and the tortfea-sor's insurer. See Fla. Stat. § 627.727 (6)(b)....

...policy and reduce Allstate's total excess exposure to $5000. In support, Allstate relied on a statutory provision providing that insurers may write UM policies limiting an injured insured's recovery to the highest UM limits afforded to any vehicle insured under that policy. See § 627.727(9)(c), Fla....

...The circuit court agreed, and it entered a preliminary order that found the Geico policy primary and the Allstate policy excess, and that limited Allstate's maximum liability exposure to $5000. Schoeck moved for reconsideration, urging that section 627.727(9)(c) only limits UM recovery to the highest limit applicable to a vehicle covered under the Allstate policy itself, and that there was no basis for "crediting" the excess carrier for proceeds owed by a primary carrier....

...red Schoeck's recovery under legal principles governing UM coverage. We note that Allstate apparently advocates a position that is contrary to the policies underlying the UM enactments and the caselaw interpreting UM contract language. "[S]ection 627.727 was intended to place the injured party in the same position as he or she would have been had the tortfeasor been insured." State Farm Mut....

...ific provision would be contrary to the purpose of the uninsured motorist statute." Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 740, 745 (Fla. 2002). We also clarify that limiting Allstate's maximum exposure to $5000 was error. First, section 627.727(9)(c) authorizes an insurer to offer a policy restricting an insured's maximum UM benefits to the highest limits afforded to any car covered under the policy itself. In insurance parlance, the statute permits carriers to offer "unstacked" or "nonstacked" UM options. Section 627.727(9)(c) does not provide that insurers may credit their excess UM benefits with a primary insurer's payouts....

...s not entitled to any set-off or credit against its policy limits." Judgment was then entered against State Farm for $25,053, representing the $20,000 uninsured motorist policy limit, $4,500 in attorney's fees, and $553 in taxable costs. We reverse. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides in pertinent part that uninsured motorist coverage "shall be excess over but shall not duplicate the benefits available to an insured under any workmen's compensation law, disability benefits law,...

...This sum reduces the $20,000 maximum uninsured motorist coverage available to Jenkins by $10,000. Otherwise, $10,000 of the $20,000 uninsured motorist coverage would be duplicated by the $10,000 benefits paid by the tortfeasor's automobile liability insurance coverage which is prohibited by Section 627.727(1)....

...Thus, Jenkins is entitled to only $10,000, the excess uninsured motorist benefits. The case of Government Employees Insurance Company v. Shelly, 347 So.2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), which was relied upon by the trial court and by Jenkins, is not applicable to the facts of this case. Shelly did not consider Section 627.727(1) which controls this case and Dewberry obviously overrules Shelly if it was applicable....

...Rehearing Denied July 13, 1989. David & French, P.A., Boca Raton, and Philip Burlington and Edna L. Caruso of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Frank W. Weathers of Weathers & Seaman, Lantana, for appellee. PER CURIAM. This appeal involves a construction of section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1983), having to do with uninsured motorist coverage....

...Thereafter, *1057 Fladell demanded that State Farm enter into arbitration regarding Fladell's claim for damages in excess of those covered by the tort-feasor's policy limits, but State Farm refused to submit to arbitration, preferring to litigate the amount of Fladell's damages. Fladell contends that section 627.727(6) [1] requires State Farm to submit to arbitration under the circumstances of this case....

...OR ARBITRATION IF BOTH PARTIES AGREE, MAY THE UNDERINSURED MOTORIST INSURER DECLINE TO ARBITRATE AND REQUIRE THE INJURED PERSON TO LITIGATE THE CLAIM FOR EXCESS UNDERINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS? HERSEY, C.J., DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1983), provides in pertinent part: If an injured person ......

...It does not impose an affirmative duty to provide the resale home buyer with the seller’s prospectus. The second duty imposed by the court is to provide Ms. Cashin with a copy of the optional lease she had the right to elect to enter into. Nothing in the Act supports this reading of section 723.059. Cf. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...Travelers policy. Both Ms. Harrington and Travelers moved for summary judgment. The trial court ruled that the Travelers policy’s exclusion of family vehicles from uninsured motorist coverage conflicts with the requirements for such coverage under section 627.727(3), Florida Statutes, and is therefore invalid....

...In Mullís the Florida Supreme Court established that, without the policyholder’s express rejection of coverage pursuant to statutory procedures, a policy exclusion will not be given effect if it conflicts with mandatory uninsured motorist requirements in section 627.727....

...of summary judgment for Ms. Harrington. See, e.g., Young v. Progressive Southeastern Ins. Co., 753 So.2d 80 (Fla.2000); Diaz-Hernandez v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 19 So.3d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Pertaining to uninsured motorist coverage, section 627.727(3) provides that, for uninsured motorist coverage, the term “uninsured motor vehicle” includes an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer: (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less...

...non-family member whose operation of an insured vehicle results in injuries to the named insured or to a relative of the named insured who is a member of the named insured’s household. The trial court determined that the under-insured provision in section 627.727(3)(b) applies and that the family vehicle exclusion in the Travelers policy conflicts with section 627.727(3)(b) and (c)....

...See, e.g., Sommerville v. Allstate Ins. Co., 65 So.3d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Hayward, 858 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Potter, 774 So.2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The trial court’s interpretation of section 627.727(3) accords with the supreme court’s pronouncements in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Warren, 678 So.2d 324 (Fla.1996). In Warren , the supreme court considered sections 627.727(3)(b) and (c), and the differing impact of those provisions on Class I and Class II insureds....

...)(b)) for purposes of uninsured motorist benefits, if the driver’s liability coverage is inadequate to fully cover the Class I passenger’s medical costs. That is precisely what occurred in the present case, and the trial court’s application of section 627.727(3) and corresponding voi-dance of the Travelers policy exclusion for family vehicles in these circumstances comports with the supreme court’s decision in Warren ....

...the issue of whether the uninsured motorist benefits under the Travelers policy could be stacked by adding the three $100,000 uninsured motorist coverages in the policy together for a total coverage of $300,000. Stacking of coverages is addressed in section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes, which lists several situations where an insurer may limit stacking, but which requires that such limitations be expressly accepted by the insured....

...Harrington’s mother did not apply to Ms. Harrington because Travelers did not obtain a knowing acceptance of any such limitation by Ms. Harrington. The court indicated that stacking of multiple uninsured motorist coverages automatically applies under Florida law unless the section 627.727(9) waiver is accepted by the insured, and under the statutory language in section 627.727(9), the waiver must have been accepted by the insured who is claiming the benefits. The mother’s election of non-stacking coverage therefore limited the mother’s coverage but not the coverage which applies to Ms. Harrington. In reaching that conclusion, the trial court focused on the language in section 627.727(9), as contrasted with section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes. Under section 627.727(1), uninsured motorist coverage must be provided with a policy for liability coverage unless there is a knowing rejection of the uninsured motorist coverage. Section 627.727(1) further refers to a “written rejection ... on behalf of all insureds,” and specifies that an approved form be used when uninsured coverage is selected at a lower limit than the liability coverage. Section 627.727(1) provides: If this form is signed by a named insured, it will be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing rejection of coverage or election of lower limits on behalf of all insureds. Section 627.727(9) likewise requires that an approved form be used when non-stacking coverage is selected....

...ides for non-stacking elections: If this form is signed by a named insured, applicant, or lessee, it shall be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing acceptance of such limitations. In light of the differing language describing the section 627.727(1) and (9) waivers, the trial court reasoned that the subsection (9) waiver of stackable coverage must be personally made by the insured who claims such benefits, whereas the subsection (1) waiver of coverage (at the liability limit) may be made “on behalf of’ the insured....

...other disputes over uninsured motorist benefits, and the following questions are certified as being of great public importance. With regard to the coverage issue 1 : WHETHER THE FAMILY VEHICLE EXCLUSION FOR UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS CONFLICTS WITH SECTION 627.727(3), FLORIDA STATUTES, WHEN THE EXCLUSION IS APPLIED TO A CLASS I INSURED WHO SEEKS SUCH BENEFITS IN CONNECTION WITH A SINGLE-VEHICLE ACCIDENT WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN BY A CLASS II PERMISSIVE USER, AND WHERE THE DRIVER IS UN...

...R’S INSURER, WHEN COM *1279 BINED WITH LIABILITY PAYMENTS UNDER THE CLASS I INSURED’S POLICY, DO NOT FULLY COVER THE CLASS I INSURED’S MEDICAL COSTS. With regard to the stacking issue 2 : WHETHER UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS ARE STACKABLE UNDER SECTION 627.727(9), FLORIDA STATUTES, WHERE SUCH BENEFITS ARE CLAIMED BY AN INSURED POLICYHOLDER, AND WHERE A NON-STACKING ELECTION WAS MADE BY THE PURCHASER OF THE POLICY, BUT WHERE THE INSURED CLAIMANT DID NOT ELECT NON-STACKING BENEFITS....

...d stacking questions are certified to the supreme court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v). WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., concur. . While the supreme court clearly announced in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Warren, supra, that section 627.727(3) authorizes a Class I passenger's recovery of uninsured motorist benefits upon a single car accident when the Class I passenger’s family vehicle is being driven by a Class II permissive user, Warren actually involved a claim made by the Class II driver. However, the court's pronouncement as to the Class I passenger's rights under section 627.727(3) was part of its reasoning and interpretation of sections 627.727(3)(b) and (c) in pari materia, with the court distinguishing the Class II driver’s statutory rights from those of the Class I passenger. In Warren , the supreme court further observed that section 627.727(3) does not stack uninsured motorist benefits "on top of” liability coverage under a single insurance policy, and the court suggested that a Class I insured cannot make a claim against the liability provisions of their own insurance policy....

...Harrington’s Travelers policy was not made for any liability on the part of Ms. Harrington, but rather was made for liability in connection with the driver’s permissive use of the vehicle. . Although Ms. Harrington did not elect non-stacking benefits and the differing language in sections 627.727(1) and 627.727(9) suggests that, while a subsection (1) coverage election may be made "on behalf of” all persons insured under the policy, a subsection (9) non-stacking election must be made individually, in Mercury Insurance Co....

...nce between the subsection (1) language indicating that a coverage election may be made "on behalf of” an insured person, and the absence of any such language in subsection (9) with regard to a non-stacking election. However, the 1990 amendment to section 627.727 added the "on behalf of” language to subsection (1) without placing such language in subsection (9), see ch....

...a by motorists who are uninsured or under-insured). In Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Baillie, 281 F.Supp.2d 1307 (M.D.Fla. 2002), the Honorable Thomas G. Wilson, Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Florida, applied Florida law to interpret section 627.727, Florida Statutes, and determine whether UM coverage applied to a Florida resident who was driving a car principally garaged in Florida....

...The court also noted the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal's holding that "[u]nder Florida choice of law rules, a contract for automobile insurance generally is interpreted according to the law of the state where the contract was made." Wausau, 281 F.Supp.2d at 1314. However, in specifically applying § 627.727 [Florida's uninsured motorist statute] Florida law applies....

...lorida. The UM form upon which Plaintiff relies in support of coverage was drafted to comply with Florida law and the accident occurred in Florida. Accordingly, Florida law governs the determination of whether the subject policy affords UM coverage. Section 627.727(1), Florida's UM statute, states in pertinent part, as follows: ....

...This statutory language is clear—once the insured has made his or her initial selection concerning UM coverage, that selection remains in effect even if that policy is renewed, extended, changed, superseded, or replaced, unless the insured requests a change, in writing, and pays the additional premium. Section 627.727 does not contemplate or require that the insurer obtain a new UM selection form every time a change is made to the policy....

...In light of the jury verdict establishing damages at less than the amount Moher received from the second driver, State Farm contends that UM coverage was not triggered and that the trial court should have entered judgment in its favor. In this argument, State Farm is correct. See § 627.727, Fla....

...s they cause to others. 2 Statutory damages “include the total amount of the claimant’s damages, including the amount in excess of the policy limits . . . and any damages caused by a violation of a law of [Florida].” Fla. Stat. § 627.727(10)....

...As a result, he lost control of his vehicle, which left the roadway, rolled over, and ejected him. He died later that day from his injuries. The vehicle Mr. Bottini was driving was insured by a GEICO policy that provided $50,000 of UM coverage. The car that caught fire was underinsured for purposes of Fla. Stat. § 627.727....

...Bottini brought this action in the District Court on February 8, 2013, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. She alleged that GEICO acted in bad faith, violating several provisions of Fla. Stat. § 624.155. She contended that she was therefore entitled, in accordance with Fla. Stat. § 627.727(10), to the full amount of damages designated by the jury in the UM breach-of-contract lawsuit....

...on of a law of this state. The total amount of the claimant’s damages is recoverable whether caused by an insurer or by a third-party tortfeasor. Fla. Stat. § 627.627(10) (emphasis added). Florida courts thereafter acknowledged that § 627.727(10) “clearly and unambiguously reflects the legislative intent that the damages in section 624.155 bad faith actions shall include any amount in excess of the policy limits.” Fridman, 185 So....

...Basic coverage shall be limited to insurance against damage caused by the fault of another resulting from contact between the insured vehicle and a vehicle with respect to which security is required under §§ 627.730-627.741." [2] Now found in F.S. Section 627.727, F.S.A.

...es. As the court said in Lipof [v. Florida Power & Light Co., 596 So.2d 1005 (Fla.1992) ] providing compliance [with the financial responsibility law] through self-insurance is not the same as issuing a motor vehicle liability policy; therefore, section 627.727 is not applicable, nor does Budget’s status as a self-insurer make it an “insurer” under the Florida Insurance Code....

...[him]." The court entered summary judgment in favor of Southeastern stating that "the motor vehicle which (McDonald) was operating at the time of the accident was not listed on said policy as an insured vehicle... ." This appeal by McDonald ensued. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975) (amended 1976) provides: No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state w...

...destrian. They argue that Florida law and the public policies surrounding that law prohibit Ohio Casualty from issuing such a policy and that the policy must be construed to provide coverage to the Sterlings' son as a "Class I" insured. We disagree. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2002), states, in relevant part: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specificall...

...persons struck by such motor vehicle." § 627.736(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Thus, in at least one circumstance in which the legislature intended to mandate the definition of "insured," it has done so expressly. The Sterlings argue that the language in section 627.727(9)(d), which allows an insurance company to issue policies excluding coverage for "the named insured or family members residing in her or his household" under certain circumstances, compels all other policies issued to individuals to...

that action are specified by the legislature. Section 627.727(10), Florida Statutes (2006), states: The damages

...of Illinois. DANAHY, Judge. This case presents the question whether uninsured motorist insurance coverage is validly rejected if the insurance agent performs the scrivener's duty of filling out and signing the insured's name to the written form required by section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1988), as long as the act of filling out and signing the form is done at the specific direction of the named insured who has himself already knowingly rejected such coverage....

...1 Arnica maintained that, the UM exclusion for vehicles “[djesigned mainly for use off public roads while not on public roads” applied, and Willis maintained that it was. invalid as inconsistent with the policy of the UM statute as set forth in section 627.727, Florida Statutes (2014)....

...- -■ We conclude that the trial court properly relied on Sommerville to determine that the UM exclusion was invalid. 2 The issue of the validity of a UM exclusion is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 154 So.3d 1106 , 1108 n.2 (Fla. 2014). Section 627.727(1) states that “[n]o motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued” unless UM coverage is also provided. Furthermore, “[t]he limits of uninsured motorist coverage shall not be less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the named insured.” § 627.727(2). These provisions apply and protect the insured unless the insured rejects them or selects lower limits in writing. § 627.727(1). Section 627.727(9) sets forth several limitations that may be included in UM policy provisions., “An insurance policy may contain other general conditions affecting coverage or exclusions on coverage as long as the limitations are unambiguous and ‘consistent with the purposes of the UM statute.’” Varro v....

...ed while occupying a rented auto. Id. This court concluded that the UM exclusion was inconsistent with the policy of the UM statute by defining “covered autos” more narrowly than in the liability provision. Id. at 563 . The court recognized that section 627.727(9) of the UM statute authorized certain limitations on- coverage but explained that section did not provide for the exclusion of particular insured vehicles....

...particular vehicles. The policy provides liability coverage for. injuries Willis causes while operating a non-owned golf cart, but it excludes UM coverage for injuries she sustains from an.uninsured motorist operating a non-owned golf cart. However, section 627.727(9) does not provide for the exclusion of particular uninsured vehicles....

based on Florida statute § 627.727. The plaintiffs contended (1) that § 627.727 requires that all insureds

...753, 754 (Fla. 1925); Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Lewis Crane Serv., Inc., 173 So.2d 715, 717 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965). 9 At the summary judgment stage, the district court did not address the plaintiffs’ alternative argument that Florida Stat. § 627.727 required that the Michigan Mutual policy be construed to provide coverage notwithstanding the parties’ intentions because Michigan Mutual failed to permit Ford to make a knowing rejection of uninsured motorist coverage for the retail lea...

...Accordingly, the district court reformed the policy between Michigan Mutual and Ford to exclude any medical payment and uninsured motorist coverage to retail lessees. The district court also rejected the plaintiffs’ alternative argument that was based on Florida statute § 627.727. The plaintiffs contended (1) that § 627.727 requires that all insureds make a knowing rejection of uninsured motorist coverage; (2) that Ford never rejected uninsured motorist coverage for its vehicles in its retail lease program; and thus (3) that Florida law forbade Michigan Mu...

...The parties do not even challenge the fact findings made by the district court after the bench trial. Rather, the appeal presents purely legal questions of Florida law regarding the interpretation of the Michigan Mutual policy, whether that policy may be reformed, and the proper construction and application of § 627.727, Florida’s uninsured motorist statute. Where there is doubt in the interpretation of state law, a federal court may certify the question to the state supreme court to avoid making unnecessary Erie guesses and to offer the state court the opportunity to interpret or change existing law....

...PURCHASE OR PROVIDE SUCH UM/UIM COVERAGE IN THE AUTO SUPPLEMENT? 17 (D) WHETHER DEFENDANT MICHIGAN MUTUAL IN ISSUING PRIMARY COVERAGE UNDER THE AUTO SUPPLEMENT OF THE POLICY WAS SUBJECT TO AND OBLIGATED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN FLA. STAT. § 627.727, AND IF SO, WHETHER AS TO PRIMARY COVERAGE THAT STATUTE APPLIES ONLY TO FORD OR TO THE PLAINTIFFS OR TO BOTH? FURTHER, IF APPLICABLE, DID DEFENDANT MICHIGAN MUTUAL COMPLY WITH FLA. STAT. § 627.727 AND, IF NOT, WHAT IS THE RESULT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SUCH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS? (E) WHETHER DEFENDANT MICHIGAN MUTUAL IN ISSUING THE EXCESS COVERAGE UNDER THE AUTO SUPPLEMENT OF THE POLICY WAS SUBJECT TO AND OBLIGATED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN FLA. STAT. § 627.727, AND IF SO, WHETHER AS TO EXCESS COVERAGE THAT STATUTE APPLIES ONLY TO FORD OR TO THE PLAINTIFFS OR TO BOTH? FURTHER, IF APPLICABLE, DID DEFENDANT MICHIGAN MUTUAL COMPLY WITH FLA. STAT. § 627.727, AND, IF NOT, WHAT IS THE RESULT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SUCH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS? 18  In certifying these questions, we do not restrict the Florida Supreme Court’s consideration of the issues presented....

...construction. We believe, however, that the decision of our supreme court in Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. v. Smith, 556 So.2d 393 (Fla. 1990), restricts us from venturing into legislative history in the present case. Shelby Mutual involved construction of § 627.727(3), Florida Statutes (1985). In 1984, the legislature amended § 627.727(1) to provide that uninsured motorist (UM) insurance coverage would be available to cover the difference between the total amount of liability insurance benefits available and the total damages sustained by the UM insured, up to the maximum amount of uninsured motorist coverage provided....

...provide that all uninsured motorist insurance would be excess UM coverage no matter how much liability insurance applied. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., supra, at 398 (Shaw, J., dissenting). It turned out, however, that the legislature failed to amend § 627.727(3) which had for many years defined the term "uninsured motor vehicle" as an insured motor vehicle whose liability insurer has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist coverage....

...t to recover uninsured motorist coverage under the policies National Union and Lloyds sold Aegis. At trial, appellees based their claim to coverage up to $1,000,000 on the National Union policy and $15,000,000 on the Lloyds policy on Florida Statute section 627.727, which, according to the Florida courts, requires all Florida automobile liability policies to provide uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of bodily injury liability coverage unless there has been a knowing, informed rejection o...

...The trial court determined that Manganelli “lived” in Palm Beach County, and thus, that is where arbitration must occur. Pawtucket has not appealed that ruling. Following arbitration, Manganelli moved for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to sections 627.428 and 627.727(8), Florida Statutes, arguing that his suit against Pawtucket was only necessary because Pawtucket effectively denied coverage by refusing to arbitrate in Palm Beach County....

...r, the trial court ... shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured or beneficiary a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured’s or beneficiary’s attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had. Section 627.727(8), Florida Statutes, provides that attorney’s fees shall not be awarded under section 627.428 in an action brought by an insured against' an uninsured motorist insurer “unless there is a dispute over whether the policy provides c...

...at 607 (emphasis added). The court explained: An insurer is in a far different posture under UM coverage. The purpose of the insurance is to provide a source of recovery when the insured has been injured by a tortfeasor with insufficient or no insurance. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...the premium for such coverage. Therefore, Brian accepted UM coverage and agreed to non-stacked coverage. SGI argued that because Brian signed the form containing the limitations of coverage, it is entitled to the conclusive presumption contained in section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1993), that a knowing acceptance of UM limitations was made....

...Without approval of the form, SGI is not entitled to the conclusive presumption of knowing acceptance. See Omar v. Allstate Ins. Co., 632 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (discussing insurer's burden to demonstrate informed election to benefit from presumption). Section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (1993), permits an insurance company to offer policies in which uninsured motorist coverage is limited in certain circumstances....

...lusive presumption that the signing of the approved form established a knowing acceptance of the limitations. Therefore, unless circumstances such as fraud, trickery, or forgery are present, the insured is bound by his signature on the form. [1] See § 627.727(9); State Farm Mut....

...y family member who resides with you, this policy will apply only to the extent of coverage (if any) which applies to that vehicle in this policy." In Mangual, the court held that the language informed *719 the insured of the limitation contained in section 627.727(9)(d)....

...did not cover the accident. The question I confront in reviewing the denial of this motion is whether Brian's election of non-stacked uninsured motorist coverage in the lower portion of the form is knowing, which is partially a function of the form. Section 627.727(9) provides that the signature of an insured raises the conclusive presumption that a knowing election was made; however, in order for that presumption to operate, the form must be approved by the Florida Department of Financial Services....

...Co., 632 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (discussing the insurer's burden to demonstrate informed election to benefit from presumption). In determining whether SGI satisfied its burden, I consider the language of the form. Brian contends that SGI failed to comply with section 627.727(9) when limiting coverage in a manner recognized by section 627.727(9)(d)....

...cy does not apply to the named insured or family members residing in her or his household who are injured while occupying any vehicle owned by such insureds for which uninsured motorist coverage was not purchased. Based on the notice requirements of section 627.727(9), for any limitation or exclusion to be placed on the uninsured motorist coverage available to an insured, such as that permitted by subsection (d), it must be stated in a form approved by the department in a manner that expresses "...

...This is the outcome because: [T]hese requirements were the quid pro quo given by the legislature to insurers for the right to limit uninsured motorist coverage by this exclusion. As further recognized by the Fourth District ... if the policy exclusion is valid despite noncompliance with the statute, the provision of section 627.727(9)(d) is rendered meaningless....

...on and that such coverage is an alternative to coverage without such limitations. If this form is signed by a named insured, applicant, or lessee, it shall be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing acceptance of such limitations." § 627.727(9), Fla....

...Appellants bring two separate appeals from the entry of two separate orders of the trial court dated December 23, 1975 and February 4, 1976, respectively. The first order dismissed Count I of appellants' complaint, which sought a declaratory judgment as to uninsured motorist coverage under Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...By order of this court, dated March 30, 1976, these appeals were consolidated. On November 27, 1972, appellants were involved in an automobile accident caused by the negligent driving of an uninsured motorist. Appellants had rented their vehicle from appellee and sought uninsured motorist benefits from appellee, pursuant to Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...ction 627.732(1), Florida Statutes (1975). Appellants contend that, as far as Count I is concerned, the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion to dismiss with prejudice. In support of their contention, appellants point to the terminology of Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975), (the statutory section that deals with uninsured vehicle coverage) which provides in part: "......

...Section 324.171, Florida Statutes (1975), allows those who can financially qualify to become a self-insured. To follow appellants' line of reasoning, we would have to rule that a self-insured could never effectively waive uninsured motorist coverage, because he was not a named insured in a policy of insurance pursuant to Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...ust be dealt with by legislative action and not judicial fiat. Kohly, supra, 190 So.2d at 822. We must therefore hold that appellee's uncommunicated waiver of uninsured motorist protection was an effective means of denying appellants' coverage under Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...December 22, 1989. Norton Bond, Pensacola, for appellant. Larry Hill of Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A., Pensacola, for appellee. JOANOS, Judge. Gary Moore has appealed from a final judgment pertaining to attorney's fees sought pursuant to Sections 627.428(1) and 627.727(8), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured's ... attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had. For its contention that Moore's entitlement to fees herein ended when the coverage issue was conceded, Allstate relied on the *1369 further provisions of Section 627.727(8), Florida Statutes (1985): The provisions of s....

...mphasis supplied). Once the coverage issue was eliminated, argued Allstate, so too was Moore's entitlement to further fees. Moore countered that, once a suit was filed involving a dispute over coverage, so that an award of fees was permissible under Section 627.727(8), an insurance company could not absolve itself from liability for those fees by thereafter conceding on the coverage issue....

...ecovered; if the tortfeasor was insured, only damages could be recovered. The court thereupon ruled that Moore's entitlement to fees ended with Allstate's April 1986 concession on the coverage issue, and entered judgment for a $1,000 attorney's fee. Section 627.727(8) specifically provides that the fee awardable under section 627.428(1) is not applicable to uninsured motorist actions unless there is a dispute over coverage....

...The insured sued, and the trial court entered a partial summary judgment finding $1,000,000 in coverage. A subsequent jury trial on damages resulted in judgment for the insured, who thereafter sought a $120,000 attorney's fee, $40,000 for the coverage dispute, and $80,000 for liability and damages. Section 627.727(8), Florida Statutes (1983) was applied so that only the $40,000 attributable to the coverage dispute was awarded....

...However, prior to litigation of the latter two issues, the coverage issue was eliminated. As did the partial summary judgment in Stack, Allstate's answer conceding on the coverage issue "finally dispose[d] of a discrete piece of litigation ... and qualifies for a fee." Under the language of section 627.727(8), the issue of coverage was not in dispute after Allstate's answer, and thus *1370 services rendered on the remaining issues were not susceptible of a section 627.428(1) award....

...AN INSURANCE COMPANY DENIES COVERAGE AND LIABILITY UNDER THE UNINSURED MOTORIST PROVISION OF ITS POLICY, SO THAT ITS INSURED IS FORCED TO FILE SUIT AGAINST IT, BUT THEREAFTER CONCEDES COVERAGE SO THAT ONLY LIABILITY AND DAMAGES REMAIN AT ISSUE, DOES SECTION 627.727(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985) LIMIT THE FEE AWARDABLE UNDER SECTION 627.428(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985) TO ONLY THAT PERIOD DURING WHICH COVERAGE WAS AT ISSUE, ALTHOUGH LIABILITY AND DAMAGES CONTINUE TO BE LITIGATED AFTER THE ELIMINATION OF THE COVERAGE ISSUE? BARFIELD, J., concurs....

...Section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (1987), requires courts to award attorney's fees to plaintiffs who obtain a judgment or decree against their insurers. That provision applies to cases involving disputes over uninsured motorist coverage, pursuant to Section 627.727(8), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...2d DCA 1985), review denied, 486 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1986). In the case at bar, Allstate disputed the amount of uninsured motorist coverage in Moore's policy, and Moore initiated this suit as a result. This is precisely the kind of situation that sections 627.727(8) and 627.428(1) address. Nothing in section 627.727(8) limits attorney's fees only to the coverage issue, regardless of whether that issue is resolved during the initial stages of litigation or at the culmination of trial....

...emeal fashion, it would seem equally improper to allow fees to be recovered piecemeal. The case law cited by the majority is inapplicable. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stack, 543 So.2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), does not involve the application of section 627.727(8)....

...Neither of the parties indicate that arbitration was considered or even available in this case. [2] The majority also cites Cooper v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 485 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), to support its position. To the contrary, the court in Cooper merely concluded that section 627.727(8) could not be retrospectively applied to the insured's case, because the insured's cause of action accrued before the enactment of subsection (8). The court therefore did not reach the merits regarding the propriety of the trial court's division of attorney's fees between coverage and all other issues litigated. Absent any language in section 627.727(8) limiting attorney's fees to the issue of coverage only, appellant Moore is entitled to recover attorney's fees incurred over the course of the entire litigation, which began as a dispute over both uninsured motorist coverage and liability....

...se for assessment of attorney's fees against Allstate as to all claims resolved in appellant's favor. NOTES [1] See Stack v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 507 So.2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). [2] Because the tortfeasor was totally uninsured, Sections 627.727(6) and 682.11, Florida Statutes (1987), were inapplicable in the case below....

...eir recovery of UM benefits as well, and granted Allstate's motion to dismiss with prejudice. An insured is entitled to recover uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits when he is "legally entitled to recover damages" from the uninsured motorist. § 627.727(1), Fla....

...ent in a court of law." Newton v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 560 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 574 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1990), approved by Dauksis v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 623 So.2d 455 (Fla. 1993). In the context of section 627.727(1), an insured is not "legally entitled to recover" from his UM insurer when the uninsured tortfeasor is immune from liability, as when the immunity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act apply to prevent the suit....

...3d DCA 2008) (finding that this court reviews a summary judgment order de novo to determine whether, after viewing every inference in favor of the non-moving party, there are any genuine issues of material fact, and, if not, whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). Section 627.727 of the Florida Statutes expressly provides that no motor vehicle policy for bodily injury coverage may be written in this state without also providing UM coverage, unless a written rejection of such coverage has been provided: No moto...

...... unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto.... However, the coverage required under this section is not applicable when, or to the extent that, an insured... makes a written rejection of the coverage.... § 627.727(1), Fla....

...See Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Lackore, 408 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1982); Warren v. Travelers Insurance Co., 650 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Divine v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 614 So.2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dismissed, 618 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 1993). Section 627.727 provides as follows: (1) No motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state ......

...luded any setoff under section 768.76(1). That the UM benefits paid comply with the statutory definition of collateral source is clearly apparent from a reading of the pertinent statutes outlining the types of benefits for which UM coverage applies. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1995), for example, reflects that UM coverage is available to those entitled to recover damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, caused by the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. Section 627.727(7) provides that the legal liability of a UM carrier does not include damages in tort for pain and suffering unless the injury is described in section 627.737(2)(a) through (d)....

...d HARRIS*, Senior District Judge. BARKETT, Circuit Judge: Appellant Rita Strochak appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment on her contract claim for excess uninsured motorist coverage based on Florida Statute § 627.727(2) (1996) in favor of Appellee Federal Insurance Company (FIC). Strochak alleged that FIC's failure to offer uninsured motorist coverage for her 1984 Lincoln violated § 627.727(2)....

...Although the 1984 Lincoln was not registered or principally garaged in Florida in 1985 when her husband, Donald Strochak, took out the insurance policy with FIC, Strochak argued that when she registered and principally garaged the 1984 Lincoln in Florida, FIC had a duty to offer her uninsured motorist coverage under § 627.727(2)....

...District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation. Accordingly, we certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: WHETHER AN EXCESS CARRIER HAS A DUTY TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE § 627.727(2) TO AN INSURED UNDER AN EXISTING POLICY ON VEHICLES WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN REGISTERED OR PRINCIPALLY GARAGED IN FLORIDA WHENEVER ANY VEHICLE, COVERED OR SUBSEQUENTLY ADDED, FIRST BECOMES REGISTERED OR PRINCIPALLY GARAGED IN FLORIDA. Strochak v....