Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Mendelson, 367 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The judgment under review is therefore Affirmed. 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). We do not agree. Sec. 627.728(1) specifically states that the definitions it contains apply to words "as used in this section." In fact, the remedial provisions of § 627.728, 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. Thus, the statutory definition contained in § 627.728 may not be employed in resolving the present issue....

...We agree with appellants that the policy provisions and the Florida Insurance Code, [3] construed in context with each other, create an implied duty on State Farm to notify its insured of the amount of the renewal premium and the date it is due. State Farm's agreement to renew is consistent with section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1983), and permits renewal coverage to be terminated if the insured fails to pay the renewal premium "when due." The declarations page from the policy which took effect in October 1982 specifically stated, "DO NOT PAY PREMIUMS SHOWN ON THIS PAGE....

...Atlas Mutual Insurance Co., 501 So.2d 681. As held in Hepler, unless the insured fails to pay the renewal premium when due, coverage under the renewal provisions continues in effect absent compliance with the cancellation or nonrenewal requirements in section 627.728....

...Security Mutual Casualty Co., 377 So.2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Travelers Indemnity Co. of Rhode Island v. Mirlenbrink, 345 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); and Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Oehmig, 305 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) in support of its argument that section 627.728, Florida Statutes, does not require any notice where a policy lapses for nonpayment of premium....

...This presumption of notice based on the mere act of mailing effectively shifted the risk of nondelivery from the insurer to the insured. We note, however, that those cases involved both policy [4] and statutory [5] provisions which did not require proof of mailing in any particular manner. In 1982, section 627.728(5) was amended by section 545, chapter 82-243, Laws of Florida, to require that the presumption of notice through mailing apply only if the notice be sent in the manner specified: United States postal proof of mailing or certified or...

...shown in *450 the policy shall be sufficient proof of notice. In view of the statutory change limiting the manner of mailing notice which is applicable in this case, we do not treat those cases as controlling precedent. We agree with appellants that section 627.728(5), as amended in 1982, limits the presumption of sufficient notice recognized in Markey to mailings made in conformance with the statutory requirements, and that less restrictive policy provisions regarding any kind of mailing do not take precedence over, and thus relax, the statutory requirements....

...Appellate Procedure. Because certain comments in the motions suggest that appellee has misunderstood and misconstrued our holding, however, we clarify our opinion to make its intent clear. State Farm contends that we have misapprehended the scope of section 627.728 in holding that it applies to notices of renewal *451 premiums....

...e, which may be sent by ordinary mail or in any fashion determined by the insurance company), the insurance coverage continues in effect unless the insurance company sends a notice of cancellation or nonrenewal that complies with the requirements of section 627.728....

...[4] For example, the policy provision in Service Fire Insurance Co. v. Markey, 83 So.2d at 856, simply stated that "mailing of notice ... shall be sufficient proof of notice." [5] Both of the Third District decisions in Woodcock and Difalco involved § 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (1977), which provided that "proof of mailing of notice of cancellation, of intention not to renew, or of reasons for cancellation to the named insured at the address shown in the policy shall be sufficient proof of no...

...insurance application constituted a material misrepresentation pursuant to section 627.409, Florida Statutes (2003). [1] Subsequently, Salgado filed a motion for summary judgment contending that United failed to cancel the policy in accordance with section 627.728, Florida Statutes (2003)....

...At the summary judgment hearing, Salgado asserted that United could not deny coverage on the basis that the policy did not exist at the time of the loss because Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law provides that an insurer's remedy for a material misrepresentation is to cancel the policy pursuant to section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), which requires a forty-five day prospective cancellation notice, rather than to cancel the policy as void ab initio. In granting Salgado's motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that "[s]ections 627.730-7405, Florida Statutes (2003), when viewed in pari materia with § 627.728, Florida Statutes (2003), are in derogation of Defendant's common law right to unilaterally rescind personal injury protection coverage for material misrepresentation; [and] as such, Defendant's common law right to rescind personal injury...

...he effective date of cancellation or non-renewal, United did not comply with the statute when it cancelled Salgado's policy retroactively to the date of inception. The trial court further concluded that the notice of cancellation did not comply with section 627.728, which required that notice of cancellation be given to the insured forty-five days prior to the effective date of cancellation....

...For this Court to conclude otherwise would be a usurpation of the legislative function. Because Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law policies are not expressly excluded from Part II of Chapter 627, they are, therefore, governed by that part, including section 627.409. V. AN INSURER'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 627.728 DOES NOT ABROGATE AN INSURER'S ABILITY TO VOID THE POLICY AB INITIO PURSUANT TO SECTION 627.409 We now address the trial court's finding that because United's notice did not comply with section 627.728, [4] which required that notice of cancellation be given to the insured forty-five days prior to the effective date of cancellation, the policy was valid at the time of the accident....

...nse even in the absence of effective cancellation." Motors Ins. Corp. v. Woodcock, 394 So.2d 485, 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In Motors Insurance Corp. v. Marino, 623 So.2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), this Court held that an insurer's failure to comply with section 627.728's cancellation procedure did not waive the insurer's right to rescind the policy under section 627.409....

...Hanover Insurance Co., 308 So.2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), the Second District concluded that section 627.409's predecessor applied to all policies and therefore could be raised by an insurer to deny PIP insurance even where the insurer had not cancelled the policy pursuant to section 627.728's predecessor. In affirming the trial court, the Second District reasoned, "[t]here is nothing in s 627.0852 [the predecessor to section 627.728] ......

..., cancellation, or nonrenewal. *603 Based on the plain and unambiguous language of this section, we find Salgado's argument unpersuasive. First, we find that section 627.736(9)(a) applies only to "renewal[s], cancellation[s] or nonrenewal[s]." While section 627.728(1)(b) defines the term "renewal," [6] which is not applicable in this case, the term "cancellation" is undefined by chapter 627....

...When a contract is rescinded, it is as if the contract never existed in the first place. Accordingly, as the policy never came into existence, there was no contract for United to cancel. *604 VII. CONCLUSION In concluding that United's only remedy was to cancel the policy prospectively under section 627.728, the trial court and the circuit court appellate division in its affirmance departed from the essential requirements of the law....

...f insurance, endorsement, or application therefor does not void the policy or contract, or constitute a defense to a loss thereon, unless such breach or violation increased the hazard by any means within the control of the insured. [4] Specifically, section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2003) states: No notice of cancellation of a policy to which this section applies shall be effective unless mailed or delivered by the insurer to the named insured and to the named insured's insurance agent at...

...ess the reason or reasons for cancellation accompany the notice of cancellation. [5] Section 627.736(9) was amended in 2007 and moved to section 324.0221, Florida Statutes (2008). Chapter 324 is entitled "Financial Responsibility." [6] Specifically, section 627.728(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003) provides: "Renewal" or "to renew" means the issuance and delivery by an insurer of a policy superseding at the end of the policy period a policy previously issued and delivered by the same insurer, or th...

...insured, at the address shown in the policy, and to the named insured's insurance agent at her or his business address, at least 45 days' advance notice of its intention not to renew; and the reasons for refusal to renew must accompany such notice. § 627.728(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). This statute applies to motor vehicle insurance, including medical expenses coverage. § 627.728(1)(a), Fla....

...It is reversible error to enter summary judgment on a ground not raised with particularity in the motion." Williams v. Bank of Am. Corp., 927 So.2d 1091, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citations omitted). Mashburn's summary judgment motion does not raise the notice issue and does not cite section 627.728....

...Sentry was permanently enjoined from canceling or refusing to renew the policy for the reasons stated in its notice of nonrenewal. On May 15, 1981, an order was entered taxing costs in the amount of $1,154.14 and denying attorney's fees. The judgment of the trial court is predicated upon Section 627.728(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), which reads as follows: (c) No insurer shall fail to renew a policy for reasons based entirely on the sex, occupation, marital status, race, color, creed, national origin, residence, military service, o...

...United Service Automobile Association, 400 So.2d 526, 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In our view the legislature has clearly established its intent that an insurer shall not arbitrarily [1] or capriciously refuse to renew an insured's liability insurance policy, [2] through its enactment of Section 627.728(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), providing: No insurer shall fail to renew a policy for reasons based entirely on the sex, occupation, marital status, race, color, creed, national origin, residence, military service, or age of the insu...

...December 1, 1975, and that payment of the premium was not a condition precedent to its effectiveness. Further, the court found that Travelers was bound to follow the cancellation provisions of the insurance contract and those procedures mandated by Section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1975), relating to cancellation of coverage....

...The finding of estoppel was based on Travelers having cashed the premium check and not having returned the money until September 14, 1976. Two questions are presented by this appeal: (1) Whether Travelers was required to comply with the provisions of its policy and Section 627.728(3), Florida Statutes, relating to cancellation; and (2) Whether Travelers' conduct in handling the insured's check estopped it from asserting that coverage had lapsed....

...Thus, when Mirlenbrink failed to pay the renewal premium, it was not incumbent on Travelers to comply with the provisions of the policy which relate to cancellation during the policy term. For the same reason, there was no requirement that Travelers comply with Section 627.728(3), Florida Statutes (1975), relating to cancellation....

...Oehmig, 305 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), the court stated that where the insured failed to pay the necessary renewal premium, there was an expiration rather than a cancellation of coverage, and for this reason it was unnecessary to comply with this statute. Section 627.728(3), Florida Statutes (1975), which requires notice of cancellation of a policy, is inapplicable here by virtue of Section 627.728(3)(b), which provides: *419 "Nothing in this subsection (3) shall apply to nonrenewal." Section 627.728(4)(a) requires notice of refusal (by the insurer) to renew, but goes on to provide: This subsection shall not apply: 1....

...eficiary form, without notifying the insured that the policy had been canceled, creates an estoppel or other equitable defense against the insurance company. [3] For automobile insurance policies, the proof of notice is now regulated by statute. See § 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (1999); Boman v....

...Upon review of the record and consideration of the briefs and oral argument we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict and entering a final judgment thereon. [1] In particular, the evidence at that stage of the proceeding did not reflect compliance with Section 627.728(5), F.S., regarding proof of mailing of notice of cancellation of insurance policies....

...Second, she contends that, in light of the renewal provisions of the policy, Atlas was under a statutory duty to give the insured at least ten days notice that the insurance was being cancelled and a statement of the reason, i.e., nonpayment of premium, pursuant to section 627.7281, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...Part XI, chapter 627, specifically relating to "Motor Vehicle and Casualty Insurance Contracts," is made subject to the general provisions in part II of that chapter by section 627.726, Florida Statutes (1983), and contains elaborate provisions in sections 627.728 and 627.7281 which limit a motor vehicle insurer's right to terminate policy coverage by cancellation or nonrenewal without giving appropriate notice to the insured. Section 627.728(1)(b) defines the terms "renewal" or "to renew" to mean "the issuance and delivery by an insurer of a policy superceding at the end of the policy period a policy previously issued and delivered by the same insurer, or the issuance and delivery of a certificate or notice extending the term of a policy beyond its policy period or term." Section 627.728(1)(c) defines "nonpayment of premium" to mean "failure of the named insured to discharge when due any of his obligations in connection with the payment of premiums on a policy or any installment of such premium" (emphasis added). Because the statutes do not define the term "when due," its meaning must be determined by statutory construction. Section 627.728(2) limits the right of the insurer to cancel motor vehicle insurance to three specified grounds, one of which is "nonpayment of premium." Subsection (3) requires that reasons for cancellation accompany the notice and that the notice a...

...ast 10 days' notice of cancellation" shall be given. Both subsections (2) and (3), however, are expressly made inapplicable "to nonrenewal." Further evidence of statutory intent to prevent an insured's inadvertent termination of coverage is found in section 627.728(4)(a), which relates to "nonrenewal." This section provides: No insurer shall fail to renew a policy unless it mails or delivers to the named insured, at the address shown in the policy ......

...and effect. (Emphasis added.) The emphasized sentence manifests a statutory intent that coverage not automatically terminate at the end of the policy period unless the insurer has complied with the notice and explanation requirements of the statute. Section 627.728(6) requires that coverage may not be terminated without advising the insured of alternative ways to obtain new coverage: When a policy is canceled, other than for nonpayment of premium, or in the event of failure to renew a policy to...

...Exceptions for "nonpayment of premium" in the above cited statutory provisions are presumably included in contemplation of an insured's conscious decision to terminate coverage with a particular insurer by not remitting payment when he or she knows a premium is due. Section 627.7281, added by the legislature in 1982, requires that: An insurer issuing a policy of motor vehicle insurance not covered under the cancellation provisions of s. 627.728 shall give the named insured notice of cancellation at least 45 days prior to the effective date of cancellation, except that, *686 when cancellation is for nonpayment of premium, at least 10 days' notice of cancellation accompanied by the reason therefor shall be given. This section appears to have been added to make certain that statutory requirements for notifying an insured that coverage is about to terminate for stated reasons would apply in all cases, not just those cases covered by section 627.728....

...This exception requires the insurer to "give 5 days prior notice of cancellation of a binder, unless the binder is replaced by a policy or another binder in the same or another company." [2] In view of the elaborate notice provisions contained in sections 627.728 and 627.7281 limiting cancellation and nonrenewal of automobile insurance without appropriate notice, we have no difficulty in discerning that the statutory scheme in Florida, which excuses such notice only when the insured has failed to pay the required...

...It protects against the insured's inadvertent failure to remember when premiums are due and prevents insurers from avoiding the notice requirements by withholding notification of the premium amount and allowing the policy to expire for nonpayment of the renewal premium. Several appellate decisions in this state have held the section 627.728 requirement of ten days notice of cancellation inapplicable where the renewal premium was not paid on or before the due date....

...ation insurance. 441 A.2d at 1191, n. 2. From this construction of the statutes and policy provisions, it follows that the admitted failure of Atlas to ever notify Ms. Hepler of the amount of the renewal premium precludes summary judgment for Atlas. Section 627.728(4) requires Atlas to give advance notice of its refusal or intention not to renew (except for nonpayment of premium which we have found to be inapplicable in this case) and further provides that "unless a written explanation for refus...

...Hepler's obligation to tender payment of the renewal premium would arise only when such notice was given by Atlas; thus, she never defaulted on the obligation to pay the premium. Since Atlas did not otherwise comply with the nonrenewal provisions of section 627.728 (and, indeed, was not free to do so until the first anniversary date of November 1, 1984), under the terms of the statute the insurance policy remained "in full force and effect" as of May 23, the date of Ms....

...ere an allegation that the bank relied on any such conduct" ( Id. at 1348). In short, nothing in that decision is inconsistent with what we have decided today. In view of this holding we find it unnecessary to reach the appellant's argument based on section 627.7281....

...icable to binders and policies issued after May 30, 1985, and hence was not explicitly applicable to the policy issued to Ms. Hepler in 1983. Nevertheless, since a similar exception was effectively added to the statutes in 1982 with the enactment of section 627.7281, requiring 10 days notice of cancellation for nonpayment of premium, the provision does indicate the legislature's continuing concern for protecting holders of automobile insurance against unknowing loss or termination of insurance coverage. § 67, ch. 82-386, Laws of Florida. This exception appears to have been moved to section 627.420 concurrent with the 1985 amendment of section 627.7281, which excluded binders not having a duration exceeding sixty days from the definition of "policy," as used in this section....

...The trial court denied appellant's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of appellee, finding that appellant's cancellation of the policy was ineffective for failure to comply with and give ten days "notice of cancellation" required by § 627.728, Florida Statutes....

...The record does not reflect whether or not the payment received two days after the grace period was postmarked within the grace period. (As above quoted the date of the postmark determines whether or not the payment is made within the grace period). Appellee contended and the trial court found that appellant was required by § 627.728, Florida Statutes, to give appellee the statutory 10 days notice of cancellation for non-payment of premium as a condition precedent to the effective termination of plaintiff's policy....

...e. If the additional premium was not paid, the policy automatically expired. If appellant had determined to cancel the policy before its termination date, it could only have done so by giving the statutory 10 days' notice of cancellation required by § 627.728....

...Here, however, there was no cancellation by the insurance company — this was an expiration of the policy brought about by the insured's failure to pay the necessary premium to renew it for an additional six month's period. The 10 day notice of cancellation requirement of § 627.728 is found in paragraph (a) of subsection (3)....

...Sandra Resnick was involved in an automobile accident. According to Resnick, at the time of the accident she was unaware that her automobile insurance had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium because she had not received the ten-day notice of cancellation, required by Section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Hepler brought an action for a declaratory judgment that her automobile policy had not lapsed for nonpayment of premiums. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Atlas. It held that unless an automobile insurer has complied with the notice and explanation requirements of section 627.728, Florida Statutes, it cannot terminate a motor vehicle policy for nonpayment of a premium....

...pting to cancel the insurance policy and did this failure (if it existed) contribute to Fidelity's liability to Wicker? The answer is clearly "no" to both. The record shows Fidelity failed to send a proper cancellation notice in the form required by section 627.728(3)(a), [3] Florida Statutes (1979) and the duty to send it to the insured cannot be delegated to an independent insurance agent such as Slack....

...Because there is no plausible basis upon which to permit third party liability in this case that portion of the judgment is reversed. Boling v. Barnes, 198 So.2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). REVERSED. DAUKSCH, C.J., and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 627.728(3)(a) Fla....

...properly considered by the trial court as a part of the pleadings. Further, appellants argue that the trial court improperly made determinations of fact in its ruling. The record shows that the trial court merely interpreted the applicable statute [Section 627.728(12), Florida Statutes (1975)] in conjunction with the facts pleaded....

...The trial court, in effect, ruled that, even assuming the facts alleged to be true, the statute upon which appellants sued afforded them no relief. This is the appropriate test under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b)(6). Appellants sought relief below pursuant to Section 627.728(12), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...The pleadings in this case show that the policy in question was not renewed (as distinguished from being cancelled); accordingly, the trial court ruled that the facts alleged by appellants did not warrant relief under that portion of the statute, i.e., Section 627.728(12), dealing with cancellations....

..."IN ORDER THAT AN AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY BE EFFECTIVELY CANCELLED, IS THE INSURANCE COMPANY (INSURER) REQUIRED TO SEND TO ITS INSURED (BEST HOMES, INC.) A NOTICE OF CANCELLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 627.728 REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PREMIUM FINANCE COMPANY HAD SENT TO THE INSURED A TEN-DAYS' NOTICE OF INTENT TO CANCEL AND A NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF THE POLICY PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 627.848? *584 "The Court further certifie...

...ve of the cause and is without controlling precedent in this State and that instruction from the Court will facilitate the proper disposition of the cause." The two statutes referred to in the certified question provide in material part as follows: "627.728 Cancellations; nonrenewals....

...atute § 627.848 into play, and for the purpose of answering the certified question we will make the same assumption here. The attorneys for the insurance company and amicus curiae argue with convincing logic that the above quoted provisions of F.S. § 627.728 are not here applicable because the premium finance company, by virtue of the power of attorney, is the attorney in fact for the insured and stands in the place of the insured and that to hold that an insurer must send the requisite notice to the insured after the insured itself has requested cancellation would require a useless act. We would be inclined to agree were it not for the fact that the statute itself clearly and specifically provides to the contrary. It is noted that F.S. § 627.728(1)(c) defines "nonpayment of premium" to mean failure of the named insured to discharge any of his obligations in connection with the payment of premiums whether the premium is payable directly to the insurer or its agent "or indirectly under any premium finance plan". It is apparent therefore that the legislature intended the provisions of F.S. § 627.728 be applicable in instances wherein the named insured failed to make premium payments under a premium finance plan. The inescapable conclusion follows that in instances wherein there is a default in the payment of insurance premiums under a premium finance plan both statutes (F.S. § 627.728 and F.S....

...cel his insurance contract unless he or the insurer first satisfies such restrictions by giving a prescribed notice to * * * an individual * * * shall apply where cancellation is effected under the provisions of this section." The provisions of F.S. § 627.728 describe the manner in which a policy is cancelled by an insurer upon receipt of the "request for cancellation" as provided in F.S....

...he act of the insured, rendering the provisions relating to cancellation by the insurer not applicable. As recited in an earlier portion of this opinion, that logic is very persuasive and would no doubt prevail but for the specific provision of F.S. § 627.728(1)(c) by which "nonpayment of premium" is defined to include default in payment under the premium finance plan and the further provisions of that statute which clearly requires notice by the insurer prior to cancellation resulting from nonpayment of premium....

...The Court of Appeals of Georgia had occasion in Garber v. American Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Dt. App.Ga.3rd, 1974, 131 Ga. App. 366, 206 S.E.2d 86, to consider a factually similar case involving the same premium finance company as involved sub judice and statutory provisions quite similar to F.S. § 627.728 *587 and F.S....

...The certified question is answered in the affirmative. In order that an automobile liability insurance policy be effectively cancelled, the insurer is required to send to its insured a notice of cancellation in accordance with the requirements of F.S. § 627.728, regardless of whether or not a premium finance company has sent to the insured a notice of intent to cancel or notice of cancellation pursuant to F.S....

...By this review, Tate contends that the policy was not effectively cancelled because he, as the insured, never received notice of the cancellation. Treating the "appeal" as a petition for certiorari, we find no departure from the essential requirements of law. First, the circuit court correctly noted that section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1981), which requires that notice of cancellation be given by the insurer to the named insured, does not apply to this case because the statute specifically defines "policy" so as to exclude collision and comprehensive loss coverage. Because the first district's decision in Martin v. Ritcheson, 306 So.2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) is factually distinguishable, petitioner's reliance thereon is misplaced. That case applied the then-effective version of section 627.728 to a policy providing automobile liability insurance, which coverage was expressly included in that statute's definition of "policy." We note that the statute has since been amended and that the 1983 version now includes collision and comprehensive loss policies, as well as liability policies, within its scope. Moreover, it is doubtful that petitioner would prevail even under the amended version, since section 627.728(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1983), provides that the requirement of notice by the insurer to the insured does not apply in cases where the premium has been financed and the premium finance company has complied with the notice provisions of section 627.848....

...2008) (“The 4 right to cancel is distinct from a policy’s lapse, or expiration by its own terms.”); Safeco Ins. Co. v. Oehmig, 305 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (construing a “notice of cancellation” required by Florida Statutes section 627.728, which expressly distinguishes between cancellations and nonrenewals)....

...pplicable to all policies. Therefore, the court properly entertained a defense raised under that statute. The judgment is affirmed. BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur. NOTES [1] With certain minor changes, this section now appears as Fla. Stat. § 627.728 (1973)....

...Appellees Mateo and Marino filed an action against MIC for a declaratory judgment and breach of contract. Appellees moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability based upon ineffective cancellation of policy for failure to comply with Florida Statute Section 627.728, and upon *815 waiver of its right to rescind by attempting to cancel the policy under Section 627.409....

...) the insurance policy in question covered a policy period of three months which automatically lapsed when the insured failed to pay the required premium on or before the expiration date of the policy, (b) no notice to the insured was required under Section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1977), as the insurance policy herein was not cancelled, but merely lapsed, and (c) the doctrine of estoppel cannot be relied upon to revive the lapsed policy....

...ot in fact cancelled but, rather, had lapsed or was simply not renewed by Ms. Williams for the third 90-day period. While I agree that a notice of "cancellation" was under these circumstances not required by the terms of the applicable statute, Sec. 627.728, Fla....

...Woodcock denied receiving the cancellation notice. Had the insurance company shown by appropriate affidavit that it fully complied with its New York office procedures in mailing this notice to Woodcock, proof of mailing and proof of cancellation, see Section 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (1977), would have been presumptively established....

...Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla.2000). Rodriguez claims SNIC was required to provide notice to Olivera, prior to the policy lapse date, that a premium was due. Rodriguez relies for this proposition upon sections 627.728(l)(c) and (4)(a), Florida Statutes (2009). Section 627.728(4)(a) provides: No insurer shall fail to renew a policy unless it mails or delivers to the first-named insured, at the address shown in the policy, and to the first-named insured’s insurance agent at her or his business address, at...

...If the insurer has manifested' its willingness to renew; or 2. In case of nonpayment of premium. ... Unless a written explanation for refusal to renew accompanies the notice of intention not to renew, the policy shall remain in full force and effect. “Nonpayment of premium” is defined in section 627.728(1)(c) as a failure of the named insured to discharge when due any of her or his obligations in connection with the payment of premiums on a policy or any installment of such premium .... Rodriguez contends that the use of the phrase “when due” in defining “nonpayment of premium” (section 627.728(l)(c) above) means that nonpayment of a premium can occur only after the insurer has provided notice of when the payment is due and the amount of the premium. Thus, Rodriguez argues, the failure to pro *523 vide notice of payment due negates the “nonpayment of premium” exception for the notice requirement of section 627.728(4)(a)....

...newal premium was due in order to maintain his policy in force. Nevertheless, Rodriguez argues that SNIC’s mailing of the renewal offers and notice of expiration was insufficient to terminate the policy prior to the accident date. We do not agree. Section 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (2009) provides: United States proof of mailing or certified or registered mailing of notice of cancellation, of intention not to renew, or of reasons for cancellation, or of the intention of the insurer to issue...

...The coverage period for the policy at issue was June 6, 2008 to December 6, 2008. . Rodriguez cites Hepler v. Atlas Mutual Insurance Co., 501 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) in support of this argument. In Hepler , the First District construed the “when due” language of section 627.728(l)(c) to “require that reasonable notice of the premium amount be given in advance of the due date before the insured may be deemed to have failed to discharge any obligation under the policy to pay the premium.” Id....

...Kurzban, Kurzban & Weinger, and Steven M. Weinger, Miami, for appellee/cross-appellant. Before SCHWARTZ, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ. *960 PER CURIAM. Where insurer established by competent evidence that a notice of policy cancellation was mailed pursuant to Section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1977), [1] the insured's evidence of nonreceipt of the notice was irrelevant....

...As the expenses of the deposition including the court reporter's travel expenses were, in this case, legitimate costs it was error to not assess them against Woodcock. We affirm on the appeal, reverse on the cross-appeal and remand for further consistent proceedings. NOTES [1] § 627.728(5), Fla....

...The insured brought suit, contending that the policy had not been properly canceled and that it remained in force at the time of the accident. The insurer contended that it had properly obtained a United States postal proof of mailing pursuant to subsection 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (1995), and that under the case law interpreting the statute, this meant the cancellation notice was effective whether the insured received it or not....

...postal proof of mailing. The trial court directed a verdict for the insured, ruling that the policy had not properly been canceled. The insurer has appealed. II. The insurer first argues that it fully complied with the notification provisions of subsection 627.728(5), Florida Statutes, and was entitled to a directed verdict holding that its notice of cancellation was effective. We disagree. Section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1995), applies to motor vehicle insurance and provides, in part: (3)(a) No notice of cancellation of a policy to which this section applies shall be effective unless mailed or delivered by the insurer to the named i...

...not to renew, or of reasons for cancellation, or of the intention of the insurer to issue a policy by an insurer under the same ownership or management, to the named insured at the address shown in the policy shall be sufficient proof of notice. Id. § 627.728(3)(a), (5) (emphasis added). Under the case law, where an insurer establishes that a notice of policy cancellation was mailed in accordance with subsection 627.728(5), the insured's evidence of nonreceipt is irrelevant....

...Service Ins. Co., 660 So.2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Boman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 505 So.2d 445, 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The first question we must decide is what constitutes United States postal proof of mailing for purposes of subsection 627.728(5)....

...nformation required by the postal regulations. We note also that the printout omits a signature blank for the postal employee, whereas the post office form requires a signature of a postal employee. The insurer argues that in order to comply with subsection 627.728(5), the insurer is allowed to create any form that it wants to. The insurer contends that so long as a postal employee will place a postmark on the insurer's computer printout, this constitutes a United States postal proof of mailing. We reject that argument. By its terms, subsection 627.728(5) allows the insurer to use certified mail, registered mail, or a United States postal proof of mailing. The obvious intent of the statute is that the insurer must comply with the postal regulations if the insurer wants the benefit of subsection 627.728(5)....

...Thus, the insurer did not have a fair opportunity to present a countervailing analysis under the postal regulations. If on remand the insurer can demonstrate that its July 10, 1995 printout fully conformed with the postal regulations, then the insurer would be entitled to the benefit of subsection 627.728(5)....

...We disagree with that analysis. Insofar as pertinent here, a cancellation notice is not effective "unless mailed or delivered by the insurer to the named insured and to the named insured's insurance agent at least 45 days prior to the effective date of cancellation ...." § 627.728(3)(a), Fla....

...nited States postal proof of mailing, then the notice is complete upon mailing and it is immaterial whether the insured failed to receive the notice. Woodcock v. Motors Ins. Co., 422 So.2d at 960. If there is no proof of mailing which conforms to subsection 627.728(5), it does not follow that the insurer automatically loses the case....

...Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein... ." Rule 1.510 (e), RCP. [3] Section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

...785 (1912), the Florida Supreme Court announced the rule that an insurance policy *7 may be severable but not when there are misrepresentations and fraud. See also National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Cubberly, 68 Fla. 253, 67 So. 133 (1914) (reaffirming the rule in Hollis ). Neither are we persuaded by Flores's argument that section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1997), provides a motor vehicle insurance carrier with its only remedy for fraud, i.e., cancellation after written notice....

...This distinction is central to our conclusion that the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that Allstate was required to send notice of cancellation to Mohan. The statutory requirements for issuance of notice of cancellation of insurance policies are found in sections 627.728 and 627.7281, Florida Statutes....

...Pursuant to the pertinent provisions of these statutes, we conclude that a notice of cancellation does not have to be sent when a policy terminates because the insured fails to accept an offer to renew by timely paying the designated premium prior to the expiration term of the original policy. See § 627.728(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995) ("Nothing in this subsection shall apply to nonrenewal."); § 627.728(3)(b), Fla....

...(1995) ("Nothing in this subsection shall apply to nonrenewal"); Williams v. Security Mut. Cas. Co., 377 So.2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA *903 1979); Travelers Indem. Co. of Rhode Island v. Mirlenbrink, 345 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Oehmig, 305 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Simply stated, sections 627.728 and 627.7281 establish the procedures to be followed when the insurer seeks to cancel an existing policy or gives notice of nonrenewal; the procedures are inapplicable to instances where the insurer offers to renew and the insured does not timely pay the required premium in order to accept the offer....

...Moreover, the insurer in Hepler did not send the insured a premium due notice or an application for insurance beyond the policy term. The court thus concluded that the strong public policy considerations underlying the notification requirements of sections 627.728, Florida Statutes applied and precluded summary judgment in favor of the insurer....

...Estoppel is not an issue in this case, and thus, Cummins is clearly distinguishable. We conclude that the trial court committed reversible error by finding that there *904 was an ambiguity in the policy provisions and that the cancellation and notice provisions of the policy and sections 627.728 and 627.7281 applied....

...lation by omitting the apartment number, the record reflects substantial competent evidence that Francis actually received the notice. The sole issue before us is whether actual notice is sufficient notice of cancellation. The insurer maintains that Section 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (1975), governs....

...certified mail, return receipt requested. While the insured's position and the logic of the Michigan court are appealing, we nevertheless reject their conclusions. The better conclusion, we are convinced, is that actual notice is sufficient notice. Section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975) says: No notice of cancellation of a policy to which this section applies shall be effective unless mailed or delivered by the insurer to the named insured and to the named insured's insurance agent at l...

...According to State Farm’s internal policies, State Farm cannot “do driver exclusions on a spouse,” which precluded Tome from keeping her policy. Tome filed suit alleging common law breach of contract, statutory breach of contract pursuant to section 627.728(4)(c), Florida Statutes, (2008), and promissory estoppel....

...Our review is de novo. Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Lindsey, 50 So.3d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Tome first argues that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether State Farm provided proper notice that it had non-renewed her insurance policy. Section 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (2008), provides that “United States postal proof of mailing ... of notice of ... intention not to renew ... to the named insured at the address shown in the policy shall be sufficient proof of notice.” Once an insurer establishes that its notice of intention not to renew complied with subsection 627.728(5), “the insured’s evidence of nonreceipt is irrelevant.” Aries Ins....

...Aries Ins. Co., 785 So.2d at 658 . Next, we turn to Tome’s argument that summary judgment was improper because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether State Farm’s denial of coverage was arbitrary or capricious, contrary to section 627.728(4)(c), Florida Statutes....

...ld be left without coverage. Had the Legislature intended for the provisions of section 626.9201 to not apply when the insurer intended to renew the policy, it could have easily said so as it did elsewhere in the Florida Insurance Code. For example, section 627.728 requires at least 45 days' advance notice of nonrenewal of a motor vehicle insurance policy, but the statute expressly provides that such notice is not required "[i]f the insurer has manifested its willingness to renew" the policy. § 627.728(4)(a)1., Fla. Stat.; see also Allstate Indem. Co. v. Mohan, 764 So.2d 901, 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (explaining that the provisions of section 627.728 do not apply when the insurer offers to renew the policy and the insured does not timely pay the required renewal premium in order to accept the offer)....

...State Farm had denied coverage asserting non-payment of premium prior to the loss, and sought summary judgment predicated upon Banton's notice of cancellation. Specifically, State Farm alleged Banton was properly mailed a notice of cancellation to his last known address for the Policy as required under section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008)....

...State Farm argued, in the alternative, that the deposition testimony demonstrated Banton's actual notice of the Policy's cancellation. Ultimately, the trial court determined there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the notice of cancellation was properly issued by State Farm under section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008)....

...urt erred in granting summary judgment under the facts of this case. "For automobile insurance policies, the proof of notice [of cancellation] is ... regulated by statute." Best Meridian Ins. Co. v. Tuaty, 752 So.2d 733, 735 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in part: No notice of cancellation of a policy to which this section applies shall be effective unless mailed or delivered by the insurer to the named insured and to the named insured's insurance agent at least 45 days prior to the effective date of cancellation, except that, when cancellation is for nonpayment of premium, at least 10 days' notice of cancellation accompanied by the reason therefore shall be given. § 627.728(3)(a), Fla....

...Streatfield, 48 So.3d 180, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). The plain text of the controlling statute mandates that the Policy's cancellation was effective only if State Farm mailed or delivered notice to Banton at least 10 days prior to the effective date of cancellation. See § 627.728(3)(a), Fla....

...rtment number, there was "substantial competent evidence that [the insured] actually received the notice [of cancellation]" sent by the insurer. Id. Because the insured actually received the notice of cancellation from the insurer, as required under section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes, the Fourth District held the trial court did not err in finding the insured received actual notice of the cancellation from the insurer. [2] Id. at 394-95. Frazier is inapplicable because it did not address the issue of whether the DMV Letter constituted proper notice under section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008)....

...In addition, the moving party "must show, by competent evidence, the nonexistence of any question of material fact." Id. (citation omitted). Because Banton and State Farm have presented conflicting evidence on whether the notice of cancellation was properly mailed as required under section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), "[t]he issue must be resolved at trial." See Tuaty, 752 So.2d at 735; see also Aries Ins....

...an that which is provided by the plain text of section 627.738(3)(a). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's entry of summary judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] An earlier version of section 627.728(5), Florida Statutes, stated: "Proof of mailing of notice of cancellation ... to the named insured at the home address shown in the policy shall be sufficient proof of notice." § 627.728(5), Fla....

...The applicable version of the statute states: "United States postal proof of mailing or certified or registered mailing of notice of cancellation... by an insurer under the same ownership or management, to the named insured at the address shown in the policy shall be sufficient proof of notice." § 627.728(5), Fla. Stat. (2008). [2] Section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), contains the same substantive language as the applicable version of the statute.

...a), which governs the computation of statutory time periods absent specific provisions to the contrary. See Health Quest Corp. IV v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 593 So.2d 533, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The only applicable statute in this case is section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), which requires an insurer to give its insured 10 days' notice before cancelling a policy for nonpayment of premium....

within sixty days after issuance pursuant to section 627.728(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Even if this unfettered

...Our review of the record, and particularly the final declaratory judgment, reveals that, inherent within the trial court's finding that appellant had no right to cancel the policy, was the finding of fact that appellees received no notice of any cancellation pursuant to the requirements of Section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...he policy issued to the Crawfords under the facts of this case. Pursuant to the contract of insurance, Allstate specifically reserved unto itself the right to cancel for non-payment of premium. [1] This right of cancellation is further recognized by Section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1973), [2] which requires ten days' notice of cancellation for non-payment of premium....

...elled as of January 2, 1975 unless Allstate received payment by that date. The Crawfords alleged they never received that notice. The applicable statute does not require receipt of notice for it to be effective, but only proof of mailing the notice. Section 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (1973)....

...Allstate may cancel this policy by mailing to the insured named in the declarations at his address shown in this policy, written notice stating when not less than 10 days, if the cause be for nonpayment of premium, or 45 days, if for another cause, thereafter such cancellation shall be effective." * * * * * * [2] "§ 627.728, Fla....

...otice of cancellation accompanied by the reason therefor shall be given. No notice of cancellation of a policy to which this section applies shall be effective unless the reason or reasons for cancellation accompany the notice of cancellation." [3] "§ 627.728, Fla....

agree with the trial court that they cannot. Section 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that:

this insurance dispute on the authority of Section 627.728(4)(a), Florida Statutes: No insurer shall fail

...After the expiration of the initial ten-year term, the policy could have been renewed, but the premiums would have increased dramatically. The former husband was aware of the right to renew the policy, but instructed the company not to renew it, some months before his demise. . See § 627.728(4)(a), Fla....

...Stat. (2008) ("An insurer issuing a policy providing coverage for workers’ compensation and employer’s liability insurance, property, casualty, except mortgage guaranty, surety, or marine insurance, other than motor vehicle insurance subject to s. 627.728, shall give the named insured at *1244 least 45 days' advance written notice of non-renewal or of the renewal premium.”)....

...shed by Maxwell, was sufficient to apprise him of the termination of his policy. The trial court’s judgment should have been for Nationwide. Accordingly, the final judgment entered below is REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH and DANIEL, JJ., concur. . Section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), provided: *670 (3)(a) No notice of cancellation of a policy to which this section applies shall be effective unless mailed or delivered by the insurer to the named insured and to the named insured’s i...

THOMAS, J. Appellant appeals the trial court’s entry of a summary judgment stemming from his complaint for declaratory action and breach of contract. Appellant contends the trial court erred by finding that section 627.7282, Florida Statutes, does not invalidate the cancellation of his automobile insurance policy with Appellee New Hampshire Indemnity Company (NHIC)....

...ry to Appellant and damage to the Ford. NHIC denied coverage for the accident, and Appellant filed the instant action. In his complaint, Appellant acknowledged the June 13, 2008, cancellation, but alleged the cancellation is void because it violates section 627.7282, Florida Statutes. NHIC’s affirmative defenses included: (1) section 627.7282 does not apply to the subject policy; (2) Appellant waived his right to dispute the policy cancellation by failing to respond to several cancellation notices; and (3) NHIC complied with all of Florida’s statutes regarding cancellation. At the hearing on NHIC’s motion for summary judgment, NHIC argued that section 627.7282, which requires certain notification procedures in the event an insurer charges an incorrect premium, does not apply because the increased premium was not “incorrect.” In addition, it asserted the statute only applies to incorrec...

...office, the agent looked up the premium on her computer and stated that the premium was $926, not the increased premium later requested. Appellant asserted the incorrectly charged premium required NHIC to send a “three option letter” pursuant to section 627.7282(1), and that its failure to do so rendered the cancellation ineffective. The trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Appel-lees, finding section 627.7282 did not invalidate the cancellation notice because the increased premium for the change of address occurred during the prior policy period; thus, the trial court opined that because an amended declaration page was sent to Appellant o...

...r there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court properly applied the correct rule of law.” (citing Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000)). This case requires us to determine whether section 627.7282, Florida Statutes, applies only to situations involving incorrectly charged premiums pursuant to an application for insurance, or whether it also applies to incorrectly charged premiums when a policy is renewed....

...The date on which the policy will be canceled shall be stated in the notice and shall in no case be less than 14 days after the date of the notice. [[Image here]] (4) This section shall not be construed to limit insurers’ rights to cancel in accordance with applicable provisions of the insurance code. § 627.7282, Fla....

...(emphasis added). As he did in the proceedings below, Appellant concedes that if this statute does not apply to the renewal of his policy, NHIC is entitled to summary judgment. Appellant also concedes that NHIC did not fail in its obligations pursuant to section 627.728 relating to notices of cancellation; rather, he argues that NHIC failed to provide the “three option letter” required by section 627.7282(1)(a)-(c) when an insured has been charged an improper premium pursuant to the insurer’s rate filings and Florida law....

...In so arguing, Appellant relies on Sotomayor v. Seminole Casualty Insurance Company, 650 So.2d 663, 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), in which the court held that an insurer’s right to cancel a policy does not void its obligation to comply with the notice provision in section 627.7282(2). To determine whether section 627.7282 applies to insurance policy renewals or amendments, and not just applications for coverage, “[t]he plain meaning of the statute is ... the starting point.” GTC, Inc. v. Edgar, 967 So.2d 781, 785 (Fla.2007). “Thus, if the meaning of the statute is clear then this Court’s task goes no further than applying the plain language of the statute.” Id. Here, section 627.7282(1) plainly and unambiguously states that it is applied when an insured has been charged an incorrect premium “that is incorrect for the coverage set forth in the insurance application .... ” § 627.7282(1), Fla....

...egate this fact. Had the Legislature intended for this statute to also apply to policy renewals or amendments, it could easily have stated as much. Indeed, the Legislature has enacted two statutes that specifically address renewals. See § 627.7277; § 627.728 (defining “renewal” as “the issuance and delivery by an insurer of a policy superseding at the end of the policy period a policy previously issued and delivered by the same insurer, or the issuance and delivery of a certificate or notice extending the term of a policy beyond its policy period or term”)....

...Thus, it is clear that there is no application process contemplated when a policy is renewed. *433 Further support for our analysis is found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 690-167.002, which provides guidelines for insurers with respect to sections 627.728 and 627.7281. Rule 690-167.002(1) provides, in pertinent part: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 627.728, F.S., any insurer which issues a policy of private passenger motor vehicle insurance in this state shall be required to complete the underwriting of the policy and make a final determination of the correct premium for the coverage se...

...(Emphasis added.) Subsection (2) of the rule provides, in relevant part: In the event that an insurer issues a policy of private passenger motor vehicle insurance and timely determines that the policyholder has been charged an incorrect premium, the insurer shall provide notice to the policyholder as provided in Section 627.7282, F.S. It is clear from reading these provisions that section 627.7282 applies to situations when an insurer sets an incorrect premium at the time an insured applies for insurance coverage....

...[u]pon review of Sotomayor’s insurance application, [the insurer] found there had been a mistake in the calculation of the premium.” Id. (emphasis added). The issue was whether the insurer complied with the cancellation requirements set forth in section 627.7282. The insurer argued that the statute did not apply because it had “an absolute right to cancel the policy for any reason within sixty days after issuance pursuant to section 627.728(2)(c), Florida Statutes.” Id. The Fifth District disagreed, holding “Even if this unfettered right to cancel exists, it does not avoid the obligation on [the insurer’s] part to comply with the appropriate notice provision, which in this case is section 627.7282(1), and its own insurance contract.” Id. (citation omitted). Significantly, the situation in Sotomayor involved an initial application for insurance, not a policy renewal. As noted, Appellant concedes, and we agree, that NHIC’s cancellation was otherwise effective, pursuant to section 627.728. Furthermore, subsection (4) of section 627.7282 provides that subsection (1) does not limit an insurer’s right to cancel a policy in accordance with other provisions of the insurance code....

...representations the plaintiff relied for reinstatement of the policy was the agent for the company. We affirm. The plaintiff presents no genuine issue on the cancellation question. The un-controverted facts show an effective cancellation pursuant to Section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...er and that Wellman had no independent agent. The department found GEICO in compliance on the issue of effective cancellation. GEICO's motion for summary judgment hinged on its position that Wellman's policy was properly cancelled in compliance with section 627.728, Florida Statutes, and no additional notice to an agent was sent because, as Wellman admitted, no agent existed....

BARKDULL, Judge. The appellant seeks review of a final summary judgment for the appellee, Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, holding the appellee had effectively can-celled the appellant’s automobile insurance policy pursuant to Section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...Industrial issued an automobile insurance policy on the appellant’s vehicle, covering it for collision damage among other things. The effective date of the policy was from September 20, 1979 to September 20, 1980. The appellant failed to pay the premium thereon and, in accordance with Section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1977), Industrial sent notices on November 14, 1979 to the appellant and to the bank cancelling coverage effective November 26, 1979....

...tee of the trust and excludes the grantor and any interested trustee”). 4. See § 626.2815(7)(k)2, Fla. Stat. (2017) (requiring a “disinterested third party” to approve certain continuing education programs for insurance professionals); § 627.728(8)(a), Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 627.728(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989); § 627.848, Fla.Stat. (1989) (amended 1992,

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 627.728(5), Fla....

since Atlanta Casualty failed to comply with section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1991), which requires that

Guaranty gave the requisite notice required by section 627.-728(2)(c) and (5), Florida Statutes (1985). After

... The plaintiff then brought a declaratory judgment action against Progressive seeking a declaration of coverage. Each party moved for summary judgment. Relevant to the arguments raised on appeal, the plaintiff argued that Progressive failed to comply with sections 627.728(3) and 627.7281, Florida Statutes (2017), which required notice of cancellation to be provided to the first-named insured ten days prior to the effective date of cancellation. She asserted that, due to this failure, the purported cancellation was ineffective. Progressive maintained that section 627.728 applies only to insurer-initiated cancellations, since the plain language of the statute addresses several situations in which an insurer might cancel a policy but does not address cancellations by an insured. Progressive further argued that policy provisions dictated that either named insured could cancel the policy, so the cancellation by the son was effective. The trial court looked to sections 627.728 and 627.7281, among other authority, and determined that Progressive “did not have [a] duty to notify Plaintiff after her son, a named insured, cancelled the policy.” It entered judgment in favor of Progressive. This appeal follows. The plaintiff has altered her position slightly for her arguments on appeal. She contends that section 627.7281 controls and that its plain language required Progressive to provide her, as the first- named insured, with notice of cancellation. She states that section 627.728 “is clearly not applicable to this case.” We disagree. “The interpretation of a statute central to a summary judgment is a matter of law subject to de novo review.” Fitzgerald v....

...2008) (internal citations, alterations, and quotation marks omitted). The issue at bar is governed by chapter 627, Florida Statutes (2017), “Insurance Rates and Contracts,” part XI, “Motor Vehicle and Casualty Insurance Contracts.” The two statutory provisions at issue are as follows in relevant part: 627.728....

...insured’s insurance agent at least 45 days prior to the effective date of cancellation, except that, when cancellation is for nonpayment of premium, at least 10 days’ notice of cancellation accompanied by the reason therefor shall be given. . . . § 627.728, Fla. Stat. (2017). 627.7281. Cancellation notice An insurer issuing a policy of motor vehicle insurance not covered under the cancellation provisions of s. 627.728 shall give the first-named insured notice of cancellation at least 45 days prior to the effective date of cancellation, except that, when cancellation is for nonpayment of premium, at least 10 days’ notice of cancellation accompanied by the reason therefor shall be given. § 627.7281, Fla....

...The Plain Language of the Statute First, application of the plain language of the statutes indicates that Progressive was not required to give notice of cancellation to the plaintiff upon her son’s cancellation. The plaintiff’s policy is the type defined in section 627.728(1)(a): a typical motor vehicle insurance policy insuring private vehicles for personal use among members of a household and 4 providing coverage for “bodily injury and property damage liabili...

...personal injury protection, medical payments, comprehensive, collision, and uninsured motorist coverage portions of a policy of motor vehicle insurance.” Since the cancellation at issue was not for nonpayment, misrepresentation or fraud, or license suspension or revocation, section 627.728 plainly did not require notice here. Nor was notice required under section 627.7281. That section applies to “[a]n insurer issuing a policy of motor vehicle insurance not covered under the cancellation provisions of s. 627.728 . . . .” § 627.7281, Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added). Thus, section 627.7281 is worded to apply to certain policies, as opposed to certain types of cancellations. As Progressive points out, this plain language application has been summarized in at least two secondary sources. One article explains that “[t]he provisions of section 627.728, Florida Statutes, apply to only those policies referenced therein. Similar cancellation provisions for other types of motor vehicle insurance policies not specifically enumerated in [s]ection 627.728 are set forth in section 627.7281, Florida Statutes (2006).” Sarah Lahlou-Amine, The Termination of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies: An Insurer’s Roadmap, Trial Advoc. Q., Summer 2007, at 21 n.32 (emphasis added). Likewise, Florida Jurisprudence explains that “[section] 627.7281, Fla. Stat., which governs notice of cancellation, applies only to policies not subject to the notice provisions of § 627.728, Fla. Stat. . . .” 30B Fla. Jur. 2d Insurance § 1885 (2020) (emphasis added). The policy at issue here was indeed within the class of policies covered under the cancellation provisions of section 627.728, regardless of whether or not the facts required Progressive to actually give notice....

...To illustrate, had Progressive cancelled due to nonpayment, it unquestionably would have been required to give notice as outlined in subsection (3)(a), since the policy falls within the definitions of subsection (1). Nevertheless, because the policy was covered under section 627.728, the plain language of section 627.7281 dictates that section 627.7281 does not apply. 1 1 Even if the plain language did not so indicate, at least two courts have interpreted sections 627.728 and 627.7281 as requiring an insurer to provide notice where the insurer initiates cancellation, albeit in dicta. In Allstate Indem. Co. v. Mohan, 764 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), the Fifth District noted that “sections 627.728 and 627.7281 establish the procedures to be followed when the insurer seeks to cancel an existing policy or gives notice of non-renewal ....

...1st DCA 1987) (emphasis added) (holding that insurer had to notify insured of renewal premium due and give sufficient notice to provide insured reasonable opportunity to make payment without lapse of coverage before it could cancel policy for nonpayment). However, the First District also noted that section 627.7281 “appears to have been added to make certain that statutory requirements for notifying an insured that coverage is about to terminate for stated reasons would apply in all cases, not just those cases covered by section 627.728.” Id....

...cated, see Fla. R. CIV. P. 1.510(e); First Union Nat'l Bank of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So.2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So.2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and did not otherwise demonstrate that it had complied with section 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (2007) ("United States postal proof of mailing or certified or registered mailing of notice of cancellation, ....

...Progressive first moved for summary judgment on the theory that the policy had been cancelled on May 19, two days before the accident. Unfortunately, when. Progressive sent out the notice of cancellation it utilized the statutory procedure for cancellation of insurance on ordinary passenger vehicles. See § 627.728, Fla....

...ly right when mailing the notice. The insurer mailed a notice of cancellation to an incomplete address, although the complete address was shown in the policy. The Frazier court was required to determine whether the following terms of Florida Statute § 627.728 had been met: Proof of mailing of notice of cancellation, of intention not to renew, or of reasons for cancellation to the named insured at the address shown in the policy shall be sufficient proof of notice....

...The Frazier court refused to adopt the Michigan court’s reasoning: While the insured’s position and the logic of the Michigan court are appealing, we nevertheless reject their conclusions. The better conclusion, we are convinced, is that actual notice is sufficient notice'. Section 627.728(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975) says: No notice of cancellation of a policy to which this section applies shall be effective unless mailed or delivered by the insurer to the named insured and to the named insured’s insurance agent at...

...During that time, Lidsky suffered five losses from thefts and accidents involving those vehicles and made claims with State Farm totalling over $96,-000. In 1988, when his policy came up for renewal, State Farm determined that Lid-sky's policy would not be renewed based upon his claim frequency. Pursuant to section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1987), State Farm notified Lidsky in a timely fashion that it would not renew his policy....

...ers who had not made past theft claims. The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of State Farm; Lidsky appeals. State Farm’s failure to renew Lid-sky’s policy based upon the frequency of his claims was not arbitrary or capricious. Section 627.728(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that: No insurer shall fail to renew a policy for reasons based entirely on the sex, occupation, marital status, residence, military service, or age of the insured, or on the principal place of...

...Allstate denied coverage and moved for summary judgment on the ground that it had cancelled the policy. The trial court granted Allstate’s motion, finding no coverage, and in doing so, erred. The record falls far short of establishing that Allstate complied with section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1995), regarding timely notice of cancellation....

...At this point, Ramirez was informed, he claims for the first time, that his policy was cancelled. Ramirez sued Bankers, and subsequently moved for summary judgment. Ramirez argued that the cancellation was ineffective because the reason stated on the notice was not authorized by section 627.728(2), Florida Statutes (1989). The trial court granted Ramirez’s motion for summary judgment. Bankers asserts that the cancellation was effective because section 627.728(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes an automobile insurer to cancel a policy for any reason, within sixty days of the policy’s issuance. Ramirez contends that section 627.728(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), does not grant insurance companies “carte blanche” to cancel policies within the first sixty days. Section 627.728(2), Florida Statutes (1989), states: (2) No notice of cancellation of a policy shall be effective unless it is based on one or more of the following grounds: (a) Nonpayment of premium....

...s after the issuance of the policy ... By its own terms, subsection (2) does not apply because Hanover’s policy had been in effect less than sixty (60) days. Sauvageot, 308 So.2d at 585. The court went on to reason that: The obvious purpose of § [627.728(2) ] is to preclude the cancellation of certain types of casualty policies which have been in effect for more than sixty (60) days except upon good cause....

...is a renewal policy. Nothing in this subsection (2) shall apply to nonrenewal. Ramirez argues that the legislature has amended the statute because the “(2)” after the word “subsection” does not appear in the more recent Florida Statutes. See § 627.728(2)(c), Fla.Stat....

...We note that when Chapter 70-213 was printed and published in the 1970 Supplement to Florida Statutes 1969, there were certain editorial omissions. See § 627.-0852(2). However, nowhere in the Laws of Florida has the legislature shown an intention to amend this statute. We find that the cancellation in question complied with section 627.728(2), Florida Statutes (1989)....