Sauvageot v. Hanover Ins. Co., 74--549
| Decision Date | 28 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--549,74--549 |
| Parties | Howard SAUVAGEOT et al., Appellants, v. The HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Albert B. Lewis of Piper & Casler, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Stephen F. Myers of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for appellee.
On June 25, 1970, appellee (Hanover) issued an insurance policy on appellants' (plaintiffs) automobile providing bodily injury and property damage liability, medical payments, uninsured motorist and collision coverage. On August 11, 1970, Hanover mailed to plaintiffs a notice of cancellation, setting forth the effective date of cancellation to be August 23, 1970. The notice stated no reason for the cancellation. On September 9, 1970, the automobile was involved in an accident with another vehicle, as a result of which a lawsuit was filed against the plaintiffs. Upon Hanover's denial of coverage under the policy, the plaintiffs brought suit for a declaration that the policy was in effect at the time of the accident and to require Hanover to defend the suit and pay plaintiffs the applicable collision and medical payment benefits.
Following the taking of testimony, the court entered judgment for Hanover. The basis for the judgment was twofold. First, the court held that the cancellation of the policy prior to the accident was effective. Second, the court found that the application for the policy contained fraudulent misrepresentations of matters of material fact, the truth of which if known would have caused Hanover not to issue the policy. The court was correct as a matter of law on the first ground, and there was competent substantial evidence to support its conclusion on the second.
Plaintiffs' contention that the cancellation was ineffective is based upon Fla.Stat. § 627.0852 (1969) Chapter 70--213, Laws of Florida 1970, 1 which stated in part:
'(2) No notice of cancellation of policy shall be effective unless it is based on one (1) or more of the following grounds:
(a) Nonpayment of premium; or
(b) Material misrepresentation or fraud; or
(c) The driver's license or motor vehicle registration of the named insured or of any other operator who either resides in the same household or customarily operates an automobile insured under the policy has been under suspension or revocation during the policy period or the one hundred and eighty (180) days immediately preceding its effective date, or if the policy is a renewal, during its policy period. This subsection (2) shall not apply to any policy which has been in effect less than sixty (60) days at the time notice of cancellation is mailed or delivered by the insurer unless it is a renewal policy. Nothing in this subsection (2) shall apply to nonrenewal.
(3)(a) No notice of cancellation of a policy to which this section applies shall be effective unless mailed or delivered by the insurer to the named insured at least twenty days prior to the effective date of cancellation, except that where cancellation is for nonpayment of premium, at least ten days' notice of cancellation accompanied by the reason therefor shall be given. Unless the reason or reasons accompany or are included in the notice of cancellation, the notice of cancellation shall state or be accompanied by a statement that upon written request of the named insured, mailed or delivered to the insurer not less than ten days prior to the effective date of cancellation, the insurer will specify the reason or reasons for such cancellation.
(b) Nothing in this subsection (3) shall apply to nonrenewal.'
As we interpret this statute, Hanover was not required to give twenty (20) days' notice of cancellation or to state a reason for the cancellation, since the mailing of the notice occurred within sixty (60...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salgado
...[Assurance] Company v. Carroll, 485 So.2d 406, 409 (Fla.1986)." Id. at 815 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Sauvageot v. Hanover Insurance Co., 308 So.2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), the Second District concluded that section 627.409's predecessor applied to all policies and therefore could be ra......
-
Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...properly raised as an affirmative defense and presented to the jury upon competent, substantial evidence. See Sauvageot v. Hanover Ins. Co., 308 So.2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (holding that the legislature never intended to preclude an insurer from defending a suit on the policy relating to m......
-
Motors Ins. Corp. v. Woodcock
...627.409(1), Florida Statutes (1977), 6 a viable defense even in the absence of effective cancellation. See Sauvageot v. Hanover Insurance Co., 308 So.2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The summary judgment implicitly rejects Motors' right to assert this defense. There is nothing in the record befor......
-
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 91-1097
...unless it is a renewal policy. Nothing in this subsection shall apply to nonrenewal. [Emphasis added]. In Sauvageot v. Hanover Insurance Company, 308 So.2d 583 (Fla.2d DCA 1975), this portion of the statute was As we interpret this statute, Hanover was not required to give twenty (20) days'......