Am. S. Home Ins. Co. v. Lentini
Decision Date | 19 December 2019 |
Docket Number | No. SC18-320,SC18-320 |
Parties | AMERICAN SOUTHERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Louis Philip LENTINI, etc., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Raoul G. Cantero, David P. Draigh, and Zachary B. Dickens of White & Case LLP, Miami, Florida; and Andrew E. Grigsby of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Coral Gables, Florida, for Petitioner
John N. Bogdanoff and Christopher V. Carlyle of The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, Orlando, Florida; and Anthony T. Martino of Clark & Martino, P.A., Tampa, Florida, for Respondent
American Southern Home Insurance Company seeks review of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Lentini v. American Southern Home Insurance Co. , 233 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), which was certified to be in direct conflict with the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Martin v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. , 670 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).1 The issue before this Court is whether an insurer that issues a reduced premium collector vehicle policy may limit uninsured motorist coverage under that specialty policy to accidents involving the occupancy or use of the collector vehicle.2 As explained below, we hold that the requirements of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (2015), prohibit the limitations placed on uninsured motorist coverage in the collector vehicle policy at issue. Therefore, we approve the decision of the Fifth District in Lentini and disapprove the decision of the Second District in Martin .
This case arises out of an automobile accident in which Michael Lentini was operating his motorcycle when involved in a fatal accident. Lentini's estate sought uninsured motorist benefits under his American Southern Home Insurance Company ("American Southern") policy issued on a 1992 Corvette collector vehicle. The Corvette policy contains a provision that limits uninsured motorist coverage to accidents involving the covered collector vehicle.
After American Southern denied coverage, the estate sued. The trial court, relying on the conclusion of the Second District in Martin , entered summary judgment in favor of American Southern. On appeal, the estate argued that Martin was erroneously decided and that American Southern limited Lentini's uninsured motorist coverage impermissibly under section 627.727. The Fifth District reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that the collector vehicle policy must and did not comply with the statutory mandates of section 627.727(9).
American Southern contends that section 627.727 does not apply to specialty insurance policies such as the Corvette policy at issue. We disagree.
Section 626.727 governs "motor vehicle insurance; uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage; [and] insolvent insurer protection." It provides as follows:
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 registered or principally garaged in 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 because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom. 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. Stat. (2015). "[S]ection 627.727(9) provides that an insurer may offer non-stacking coverage provided that the insurer informs the insured of the limitations of such coverage and the insured executes an approved form expressly electing non-stacking coverage." Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington , 154 So. 3d 1106, 1113 (Fla. 2014). Specifically, subsection (9) permits insurers to offer policies with limitations on uninsured motorist coverage as follows:
As identified by the Fifth District in Lentini , 233 So. 3d at 1261 (quoting § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (2015) ). The Second District's conclusion in Martin that "[s]ection 627.727(1) does not specifically mandate coverage for claims unconnected with the insured vehicle" is unsupported. 670 So. 2d at 1000-01. Even though the restrictive language of the collector policy and the reduced premium offered in exchange for those limitations distinguish it from a standard automobile insurance policy, the statutory language in section 627.727(1) does not make such a distinction between different types of "motor vehicles." Accordingly, the limiting policy language in the collector vehicle policy at issue violates the statute.
Further, section 627.727(9)(d) allows for uninsured motorist coverage to be limited to exclude injuries suffered in vehicles "for which uninsured motorist coverage was not purchased." However, "Lentini did not reject uninsured motorist coverage; instead, he selected stacked uninsured motorist coverage under the collector vehicle policy," and American Southern did not obtain Lentini's consent for such a limitation. Lentini , 233 So. 3d at 1261.
Because the limitations to uninsured motorist coverage in the collector vehicle policy do not comply with the statutory mandates under section 627.727, we approve the Fifth District's decision in Lentini and disapprove the Second District's decision in Martin . We remand this case to the Fifth District for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (2015), provides that no motor vehicle insurance policy shall be delivered or issued in this state "unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto." The first issue presented here is whether the motor vehicle insurance policy for Michael Lentini's collector 1992 Chevrolet Corvette was subject to the requirements of section 627.727(1). I agree with the plurality opinion that "the statutory language in section 627.727(1) does not make a distinction between different types of ‘motor vehicles.’ " Lentini's collector Corvette was a motor vehicle, and the collector vehicle insurance policy he took out on the car was a motor vehicle insurance policy subject to the requirements of section 627.727(1).
The second issue we must address is whether the collector vehicle policy—which covered injuries sustained by Lentini resulting from the negligence of an uninsured motorist while driving the Corvette, but did not cover him while he was driving any of his other vehicles—provided "uninsured motor vehicle coverage" as required by section 627.727(1). That question turns on the meaning of "uninsured motor vehicle coverage." In other words, what are the minimum provisions an insurance company must include in a policy to meet the statutory requirement of "uninsured motor vehicle coverage"?
The statutory text does not provide a clear answer. The legislature has never defined "uninsured motor vehicle coverage," and our attempts to explain what it means have been based on a fifty-year-old case that analyzed an older version of section 627.727 and relied on a questionable reading of the statutory text. See Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 252 So. 2d 229, 238 (Fla. 1971) (Boyd, J., dissenting) ();3 Martin v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 670 So. 2d 997, 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Knight v. State
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Parrish
...in dispute, the only issue we must decide is what this policy term means. That is an issue we review de novo. Am. S. Home Ins. Co. v. Lentini, 286 So. 3d 157, 158 n.2 (Fla. 2019) ; Ganzemuller v. Omega Ins. Co., 244 So. 3d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). The policy does not define "disintere......
-
Hoffman v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., No. 1D19-1218
...insured's informed consent in exchange for the payment of a reduced premium. Am. S. Home Ins. Co. v. Lentini , 286 So. 3d 157, 160-62 (Fla. 2019) (Muñiz, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). In short, as Appellants properly concede on appeal, non-stacked UM coverage provi......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wilson
...Section 627.727(9) ] was written solely to allow non-stacked [UM] coverage."); see generally Am. S. Home Ins. Co. v. Lentini, 286 So. 3d 157, 161–63 (Fla. 2019) (Muñiz, J., concurring in part) (explaining procedures for limiting UM coverage under section 627.727(9) ). The 1987 amendment enu......