Allstate Ins. Co. v. Baer, 75--610
| Decision Date | 08 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--610,75--610 |
| Citation | 334 So.2d 135 |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Appellant, v. Bernhard BAER and Yetta Baer, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Weissenborn, Burr & Hyman, Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for appellant.
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Brumer, Moss, Cohen & Rodgers, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HENDRY, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
This appeal by Allstate Insurance Company, the plaintiff below is from a declaratory judgment determining the limits of uninsured motorist coverage included in automobile liability indemnity policies which had been issued by the appellant to the appellees.
On or about September 22, 1973, the insurer notified the insureds, in writing, that as required by law the limits of the uninsured motorist coverage in the policies would be increased to equal the limits of the liability coverage, on October 1, 1973, unless the insureds rejected the increase in writing. Each policy provided $100,000.00 and $300,000.00 liability and $10,000.00--$20,000.00 uninsured motorist coverage. The insureds did not so reject the increase.
In the declaratory judgment action brought by Allstate against the appellees, Allstate contended the increase did not thereby occur. The defendants contended otherwise. The court held the increase became effective. Allstate appealed.
The notice sent by Allstate to the insureds, a short time prior to October 1, 1973, and which was received by them and upon which they concluded not to reject the indicated increased coverage, was as follows:
'New Requirements For Uninsured Motorist Coverage
'The insurance law in Florida requires that we make a change in the coverage of many of our policyholders.
'Beginning October 1, 1973, the law states that We must include Uninsured Motorist Protection in your policy. This coverage Must be in the same limits as your Bodily Injury Liability limits.
'If you already have Uninsured Motorist Protection--we will increase your limits to equal your Bodily Injury Liability limits.
'If you now carry no Uninsured Motorist Protection, we will add it to your policy--with limits equalling your Bodily Injury Liability limits.
'The additional charge will be included in your premium.
'However, under the law you do have the opportunity To reject the changes in your coverage that we are required by law to make. You can decide to reject the coverage completely, or to have lower limits.
'You have the right to reject these changes--it must be in writing! You have the right to reject this coverage, or to select lower limits. But we Must receive written notice from you. Otherwise your coverage will include the changes in your Uninsured Motorist Protection, or the addition of that coverage to your policy.
'If you choose to reject the changes we are required by law to make, just check the box that informs us of what you want done, sign the form and return it to us in the enclosed envelope.
'If you have any questions about this change or any other insurance matter, just see your agent or call our nearest office.' (Emphasis by Allstate).
Appended thereto was a detachable card to be mailed to Allstate by the insureds in event they should desire to reject the increased coverage. At the trial there was evidence that the insureds were aware of the notice prior to October 1, 1973, and chose not to reject the increased coverage. Additionally Bernhard Baer testified as follows:
'Q. Now, when you read this what was your inclination as to what you had to do about it? A. That in order to receive maximum coverage on uninsured motorist I had to do nothing. Q. Effective October 1st, 1973, you had it? A. That's right.
Q. In 1972 were you ever given the opportunity to accept or reject a higher uninsured motorist limit equal to your liability policy? A. No. Q. If you had been given that opportunity would you have declined it or accepted it? A. 1 would have accepted it.' 1
When the trial court had before it the above notice from Allstate to the insureds and the evidence relating to their purposeful non-rejection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spaulding v. American Fire & Indem. Co.
...362 So.2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Beaver, 355 So.2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Baer, 334 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Rejection of coverage equal to the liability limits must be affirmative and knowing. Wilson v. National Indemnit......
-
Matusow v. Matusow, 85-1683
...Group v. Tavormina, 385 So.2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Guthrie v. Guthrie, 357 So.2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Allstate Insurance Company v. Baer, 334 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Bosem v. Bosem, 269 So.2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). We recognize that where the husband agrees to pay a fixed amou......
-
Lancaster Oil Co. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
...364 (Fla. 4th D.C.A.1978); Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Beaver, 355 So.2d 441 (Fla. 4th D.C.A.1978); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Baer, 334 So.2d 135 (Fla.3d D.C.A. 1976). Rejection of coverage equal to the liability limits must be affirmative and knowing. Wilson v. National Indemnity Co......
-
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Quintana, 77-2651
...personal injury protection benefits) which at the maximum could only total $15,000. Cf. Ruwitch, supra, and Allstate Insurance Company v. Baer, 334 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). We further note that the "time affidavit" relied upon by the attorney for Quintana and Gonzalez and their expert ......