CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14719, 2006 WL 2520655
...ount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss. . . . Because Gonzalez misrepresented material facts on her insurance application, it "may prevent recovery under the contract or policy." A similar statute, section 627.7282(1)(c), dealing with the charging of an incorrect premium, specifies for the cancellation of the policy and the return of any unearned premium to the insured....
...Section
627.409, however, is silent as to whether the insurer must return the premiums paid when there is a material misrepresentation. First, we hold that the failure to return the premiums did not waive Eagle's right to deny coverage. In U.S. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Figueroa,
917 So.2d 901, 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), we held that "section
627.7282(1)(c) does not require the insurer to return an unearned premium as a condition precedent to canceling the insurance policy." If we did not make the return of the unearned premium a condition precedent where the statute specifically...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 2656118
...Security issued the policy, it discovered a clerical error in the amount of the premium and notified Figueroa that a higher premium was due. Utilizing a statutorily-required procedure, the notification offered Figueroa three options before canceling the policy. See § 627.7282(1), Fla....
...Security returned the unearned premium to Appco rather than to Figueroa. Understandably, the trial court's reliance on Bankers made perfect sense as Bankers is the only Florida appellate case addressing this issue. *903 This Court, however, disagrees with our sister court because Bankers misinterprets Florida law. Section 627.7282(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that when an insurer determines that a policyholder has been charged an incorrect premium, the insurer shall immediately notify the policyholder that he has three options from which to choose. See § 627.7282(1), Fla....
...in the policy self-canceling. The statute further provides for these circumstances and states that "[if] the policyholder fails to timely respond to the notice, the insurer shall cancel the policy and return any unearned premium to the insured." See § 627.7282(1)(c), Fla....
...In Bankers, the court held that where an insurance company fails to return the unearned premium to its insured, and instead sends the refund to the premium finance company, the cancellation of the insurance policy is ineffective because the statutory obligations of section
627.7282(1)(c) have not been satisfied. Bankers,
814 So.2d at 1120. Essentially, Bankers interprets section
627.7282(1)(c) to read in the additional requirement that unearned premium refunds must be sent directly to the insured as a condition precedent to the cancellation of the policy. We disagree with this interpretation. The plain language of section
627.7282(1)(c) requires the insurer to cancel the policy and return the unearned premium to the insured....
...the cancellation. As a matter of law, the cancellation was effective regardless of when U.S. Security returned the unearned premium or to whom the premium was paid. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in relying on Bankers, and hold that section 627.7282(1)(c) does not require the insurer to return an unearned premium as a condition precedent to canceling the insurance policy....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3501, 2011 WL 891918
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....
...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....
...(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....
...)(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....
...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....
