Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. West
| Citation | 276 So.2d 31 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 42407,42407 |
| Parties | AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. Jennie Bell WEST et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jeanne Heyward, and Knight, Peters, Hoeveler, Pickle, Neimoeller & Flynn, Miami, for petitioners.
Robert Orseck of Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, and Fuller, Brumer, Moss & Cohen, Miami, for respondents.
We have jurisdiction of this cause, pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, F.S.A., because of a direct conflict between the decision sub judice of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 260 So.2d 534, and Phoenix Insurance Co. v. McQueen, 240 So.2d 79 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1970).
Jennie Bell West filed an action for damages against the owner of a car with which she was involved in an accident and joined Auto Owners Insurance Co. as a defendant, alleging that Auto Owners at the time of the accident insured the owner of the car for the damages she was claiming. Auto Owners denied that its insurance policy covered the car involved.
Both parties moved for summary judgment on the issue of coverage. The trial court granted the motion of Jennie Bell West, finding 'that the defendant's failure to respond to the SR--21 notice estops defendant insurer from denying coverage.'
The SR--21 notice referred to is a self-serving form notice used by car owners involved in accidents to notify the Financial Responsibility Division of insurance coverage. One of these forms was filed in this case by the co-defendant car owner, claiming that the car was insured by Auto Owners. Fla.Stat. § 324.091, F.S.A., a part of our Financial Responsibility Law, provides that when such a form is received by the Insurance Department a copy of it shall be mailed to the alleged insurer and that the Department 'shall assume' that coverage is in effect unless the insurer responds to the contrary within twenty days. The statute also provides that if evidence of noncoverage is received even after this twenty-day period, the Department may take such action as is otherwise authorized under that chapter.
The trial court's finding of an estoppel based on a failure to respond to an SR--21 is directly contrary to the decision in Phoenix Insurance Co. v. McQueen, Supra, wherein it was held that such a failure to respond does not amount to an estoppel. In Phoenix, the court, in reference to Fla.Stat. § 324.091, F.S.A., said:
'. . . There is nothing in the statute which either directly or by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns
...on the issue of insurance coverage. Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. West, 260 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), reversed on other grounds, 276 So.2d 31 (Fla.1973); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 261 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Petitioner concedes that the wording of the present rule differs......
-
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Summers
...with it the obligation to pay. Accord, Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. West, 260 So.2d 534 (Fla.3d DCA 1972), rev'd on other grounds, 276 So.2d 31 (Fla.1973). While these cases were decided under former Florida Appellate Rule 4.2(a), 1 the current rule carries forward the same language insofar......
-
Auto Owners Insurance Company v. West, 71--1292
...and Whereas, on review of this court's judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed April 4, 1973 (276 So.2d 31) and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court's judgment and ordered the cause remanded to the trial court with Now, therefo......