Young v. Travelers Ins. Co., BK-143

• Decision Date: 28 October 1986
• Docket Number: No. BK-143,BK-143
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2258 Roger YOUNG and Aqua Shield Roofing, Inc., Appellants, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 232

496 So.2d 232

11 Fla. L. Weekly 2258

Roger YOUNG and Aqua Shield Roofing, Inc., Appellants, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., Appellee.

No. BK-143.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

Oct. 28, 1986.

William R. Hussey, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant Young.

Charles E. Pettit, of Butler, Pettit & Rose, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant Aqua Shield.

William S. Blatt, of Beisler & Beisler, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant Aqua Shield seeks review of a workers' compensation order by which it was determined that appellee Travelers had effectively cancelled its insurance policy and was thus not at risk for claimant's injury. We find that Travelers' purported cancellation was not effective, and we therefore reverse the order appealed.

In August 1984 Travelers furnished Aqua Shield with a notice of cancellation which purported to terminate its insurance coverage effective immediately. Travelers nevertheless continued to bill Aqua Shield for additional premiums, and Aqua Shield made payment in accordance with this bill. Travelers received such payment without objection or further notice to Aqua Shield. During the prior policy year Aqua Shield had cured a premium delinquency in this manner after notice of cancellation, and Travelers had reinstated coverage without further notice. A workers' compensation claim was made for an injury alleged to have been sustained in December 1984, and Travelers relied on its August notice of cancellation to deny coverage.

Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes, provides that:

No contract or policy of insurance issued by a carrier ... shall expire or be cancelled until at least 30 days have elapsed after a notice of cancellation....

Although Travelers attempted by its August notice of cancellation to terminate coverage immediately, the deputy recognized that such immediate cancellation would not comply with section 440.42(2) and therefore deemed coverage to have expired thirty days after the notice of cancellation. However, in Peninsular Fire Insurance Co. v. King, 282 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), where a cancellation notice did not include the statutory thirty day provision, the purported cancellation was determined to be ineffective and coverage was afforded pursuant to the policy even though the claim was for an injury which occurred more than thirty days after the notice of cancellation. In accordance with Peninsular Fire, Travelers' failure to comply with section 440.42(2) in ...