Policy Conditions Remain when Named Insured Added
Post 4897
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v5g1x39-policy-conditions-remain-when-named-insured-added.html and at https://youtu.be/-mMN39xwSsA
Progressive Select Insurance Company appealed the summary final judgment rendered in favor of its insured, Cindy Dunkel nee Browning (“Cindy”), in her declaratory judgment action concerning whether she was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage. Progressive argues that the trial court erred in concluding that Progressive was required to offer Cindy uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage and obtain her written rejection of such coverage at the time she was added to her new husband’s existing policy and that its failure to do so resulted in coverage for Cindy.
In Progressive Select Insurance Company v. Cindy Dunkel, No. 6D2023-1429, Florida Court of Appeals, Sixth District (September 20, 2024) the right to UM coverage was explained.
BACKGROUND
In June 2011, Kenneth Dunkel, a single man, applied to Progressive for insurance coverage for his vehicles. Cindy Browning was listed on the application as a “rated driver” because she lived at the same address. As a rated driver, Cindy had rights to the bodily injury benefits under the policy. Kenneth subsequently signed the Florida Uninsured Motorist Coverage Selection/Rejection Form, choosing to “reject all Uninsured Motorist coverage.”
Later, Kenneth changed his marital status on the policy to “married” and added Cindy to his policy as a “named insured.” A Revised Renewal Declarations Page was issued shortly thereafter to reflect the changes. It showed both Kenneth and Cindy as “named insureds” and that UM coverage had been rejected. Although Cindy could have requested a change in coverage once she became a named insured, she did not.
Cindy was involved in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured motorist. She gave Progressive timely notice of the accident and sought to recover under the UM portion of the policy which was rejected. She sued and Progressive raised the affirmative defense that a valid and enforceable rejection of UM coverage was in effect at the time of the accident, and thus Cindy was not entitled to UM coverage under the policy.
The trial court denied Progressive’s amended motion for summary judgment and granted Cindy’s motion for summary judgment, reasoning that a new contract was created when Cindy’s status changed to “named insured” and, thus, Progressive was required to send her the UM Selection/Rejection Form.
ANALYSIS
Progressive argued that:
(1) under the applicable Florida statutes, Kenneth’s rejection of UM coverage was binding on all insureds and persons making a claim under the policy, and
(2) there was no change in the policy since its inception that would trigger the statutory requirement that the named insureds be sent a new UM Selection/Rejection Form.
Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (2015) requires all vehicle insurance policies that provide bodily injury liability coverage to also include UM coverage, unless UM coverage is rejected by the named insured.
EVIDENCE
The evidence reflected that Progressive provided Kenneth with the approved UM Selection/Rejection Form in 2011. Kenneth was the sole named insured on the policy at that time. His written rejection of UM coverage gave rise to a conclusive presumption that Kenneth made an informed, knowing acceptance of such limitations on behalf of all insureds. Under section 627.727(9), Kenneth’s initial rejection of UM coverage applied “to any policy which renew[ed], extend[ed], change[d], supersede[d], or replace[d] [that] original policy.
ANALYSIS
Progressive established that Kenneth never dropped off the policy; he remained as a named insured throughout the life of the policy.
The amendment of the policy to add Cindy as a named insured did not result in her being the sole named insured. Progressive asserted there was no change in the policy since its inception that would trigger the statutory requirement that the named insureds be sent a new UM Selection/Rejection Form.
Because Cindy’s becoming a named insured on the existing policy did not render the policy a “new” one, Progressive was not required to provide Cindy with a new UM Selection/Rejection Form when she joined Kenneth in the “named insured” category.
Therefore, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of coverage and the judgment was reversed.
UM coverage places a person’s insurer in the position as the insurer of an uninsured motorist. Selection or rejection of UM coverage is controlled by statute in Florida. The statute allows an insured to reject UM coverage and the rejection follows every renewal of the policy without a need for new rejections, even when a new Named Insured is added to the policy. Since neither Cindy nor her spouse changed the rejection of the UM coverage there is no coverage for the injuries Cindy received from an uninsured motorist.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Like this:
Loading…
Related
About Barry Zalma
An insurance coverage and claims handling author, consultant and expert witness with more than 48 years of practical and court room experience.
