Continental Ins. Co. v. Roth, 79-1909
| Decision Date | 23 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1909,79-1909 |
| Citation | 388 So.2d 617 |
| Parties | The CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Appellant, v. Robert F. ROTH, Clinton Roth, and Dorothy Roth, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and James E. Tribble and Todd A. Cowart, Miami, for appellant.
William R. Alvin, Miami, Savitt, Kotzen & France, N. Miami Beach, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.
We review a declaratory judgment in which it was held that a named insured in an automobile liability policy could not effectively refuse uninsured motorist (U/M) coverage for other named insureds. We reverse.
Clinton, Dorothy and son Robert were named insureds in an automobile liability policy issued to them by appellant, Continental, through the agency of Turner-Frix Insurance, Incorporated. The agent sent to appellees Roth both a notice regarding statutorily-mandated provision of U/M coverage, as well as an option form by which they might reject en toto, or lower, that coverage. Following telephonic communication between Mrs. Roth and an employee of the agency, Mr. Roth rejected the U/M coverage in a writing forwarded to the insurer. Thereafter, the son was injured while operating an insured vehicle. Blaming a "hit and run" driver for Robert's misfortune, the Roths sought a U/M award under the policy.
The Roths argue alternatively that the rejection of U/M coverage had not been knowingly and intelligently made, and that in any event, Robert, as a named insured who had not rejected the U/M coverage, was not bound by his father's rejection thereof.
The trial court accepted the reasoning of the latter contention, and expressly refused to resolve the question of fact regarding the former.
Florida's uninsured motorist insurance statute, in pertinent part, reads thus:
No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless 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 shall not be applicable when, or to the extent that, any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage. (Emphasis supplied.)
§ 627.727(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). (Changes in the law leading to its present evolution have no impact on the issue sub judice.)
In an instance where the statutory authority of a named insured to reject U/M coverage for an additional (rather than "named") insured was questioned, we found that such authority did in fact exist:
(T)he law giveth and the law taketh away. The first clause of the Statute (, affording U/M coverage "for the protection of persons insured thereunder . . .") giveth but the proviso above quoted ("the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable where any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage") furnishes a method by which it may be taken away. In this case, sub judice, the "insured named in the policy" rejected the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
...principal operator would not make him a named insured for the purpose of rejecting uninsured motorist coverage. Continental Insurance Co. v. Roth, 388 So.2d 617 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), found the father's rejection of uninsured motorist coverage binding on his son, even though the son was include......
-
29,536 La.App. 2 Cir. 6/20/97, Bullock v. Homestead Ins. Co.
...that an additional insured or another named insured is bound by the UM rejection of a named insured, see Continental Insurance Company v. Roth, 388 So.2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982). Like its Louisiana counterpart, Flor......
-
Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington
...UM benefits, making the calculation of a single UM premium impractical, as well as virtually impossible.See Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Roth, 388 So.2d 617, 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (“We envision no rational apportionment of the [UM] premium among named insureds, should some want the coverage, and oth......
-
Old American Cty. Mut. Fire Ins. v. Sanchez
...coverage), overruled on other grounds by Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1148 (Fla.1985); Cont'l Ins. v. Roth, 388 So.2d 617, 618 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980) (interpreting phrase "any insured named in the policy" as synonymous with "any named insured"). Finally, Louisiana cour......