Kenilworth Ins. Co. v. McCormick

• Decision Date: 06 February 1981
• Docket Number: No. YY-35,YY-35
• Parties: KENILWORTH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Donna J. McCORMICK, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1037

394 So.2d 1037

KENILWORTH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Donna J. McCORMICK, Appellee.

No. YY-35.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 6, 1981.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1981.

E. N. Stephens, Jr., Pensacola, for appellant.

Robert J. Mayes and Stephen H. Echsner, of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Mabie & Magie, P. A., Pensacola, for appellee.

SHIVERS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment holding that a carrier is obligated to secure a second rejection of uninsured motorist benefits and to offer a new personal injury protection deductible when an insured, who has previously rejected uninsured motorist coverage and has elected a personal injury protection deductible, purchases a replacement vehicle. We reverse.

On October 15, 1977, the named insureds, Charles McCormick and Lucy Harrison McCormick, renewed their automobile insurance policy with Kenilworth Insurance Company for the period beginning October 20, 1977, and expiring October 20, 1978. The policy provided for a $2,000 personal injury protection deductible and a $10,000/$20,000 liability coverage for a 1976 Ford pick-up and a 1967 Ford sedan. At the time of the renewal, the insureds rejected uninsured motorist coverage.

On February 13, 1978, a change-of-car endorsement was issued by the carrier which deleted the Ford sedan and added a 1972 Ford Gran Torino. At the time the change-of-car endorsement was issued, uninsured motorist coverage was neither requested nor rejected by the insureds and the coverage limits and premium amounts set out in the renewal policy issued in October 1977 remained unchanged. The endorsement expressly indicated that it formed a part of the renewal policy in which the insureds had rejected uninsured motorist coverage and elected the $2,000 personal injury protection deductible.

On July 16, 1978, appellee, a member of the insureds' household, was involved in an accident while driving the Ford Gran Torino.

In rendering a partial summary judgment in favor of appellee and finding that the change-of-car endorsement was a new insurance policy, the lower court ruled that the carrier was obligated to secure a second rejection of uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), when the change-of-car endorsement was issued. Since there was no new rejection of uninsured motorist coverage obtained by the carrier at that time, the court held that the policy provided uninsured motorist coverage to the insureds in the same amount as the bodily injury liability coverage. Additionally, because a personal injury protection deductible was neither offered by the carrier nor selected by the insured when the change-of-car endorsement was issued, the lower court ruled there was no deductible under Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977).

The lower court erred in ruling the carrier was obligated to secure a second rejection of uninsured motorist coverage when the change-of-car endorsement was issued. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Bergman, 387 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977), requires that an automobile insurance policy must...