The Florida Supreme Court has just reaffirmed the public’s right to purchase an important type of automobile insurance known as uninsured motorist coverage. Uninsured motorist coverage protects people who are injured in motor vehicle accidents as the result of another driver’s negligence when that other driver does not have enough insurance to compensate the injured person for his or her losses.
Many years ago the Florida Legislature passed a law requiring every automobile insurance policy to provide as much uninsured motorist coverage as the policy provides in liability coverage, which protects insured persons against the claims of others. An exception to this requirement is recognized where the named insured under the policy, after being advised in writing of his or her rights, waives uninsured motorist coverage in writing. The Florida Courts strictly enforce this requirement, because they consider uninsured motorist coverage to be very important.
In the case decided by the Florida Supreme Court, a young woman inherited a car from her grandmother and sought insurance coverage from Horace Mann Insurance Company. Instead of issuing a new policy to the young woman and advising her of her right to have uninsured motorist coverage equal to her liability coverage, Horace Mann simply inserted her name as the named insured under a policy that her father had taken out years earlier. Horace Mann did not advise her of her rights regarding uninsured motorist coverage and did not obtain the written waiver that the law requires.
After the young woman and her father were involved in a serious accident in which her father was tragically killed, she made a claim for the loss of her father under the uninsured motorist coverage of her policy. Horace Mann refused to pay uninsured motorist benefits equal to her liability coverage ($100,000), claiming that the proper amount of benefits was $25,000, because the young woman was bound by a coverage waiver that her father had signed when the policy had been sold to him. Thus, Horace Mann’s decision had the effect of depriving the young woman of $75,000 in uninsured motorist coverage.
The firm of Pajcic & Pajcic filed suit on the young woman’s behalf. The law firm argued that their client could not be bound by her father’s waiver, because she had never been given an opportunity to make a knowing selection of uninsured motorist coverage. The trial judge agreed with Pajcic & Pajcic’s position, but his decision was overruled by a court of appeal. Pajcic & Pajcic then asked the Florida Supreme Court to review this ruling, and today that court found in favor of their client. The Court ruled that, when the young woman sought insurance for her car, Horace Mann was required to advise her of her rights and obtain a written waiver of those rights, which it had failed to do.
This ruling sends a strong message to insurance companies that they should not use technicalities to deny coverage to their customers.
The Florida Supreme Court has just reaffirmed the public’s right to purchase an important type of automobile insurance known as uninsured motorist coverage. Uninsured motorist coverage protects people who are injured in motor vehicle accidents as the result of another driver’s negligence when that other driver does not have enough insurance to compensate the injured person for his or her losses.
Many years ago the Florida Legislature passed a law requiring every automobile insurance policy to provide as much uninsured motorist coverage as the policy provides in liability coverage, which protects insured persons against the claims of others. An exception to this requirement is recognized where the named insured under the policy, after being advised in writing of his or her rights, waives uninsured motorist coverage in writing. The Florida Courts strictly enforce this requirement, because they consider uninsured motorist coverage to be very important.
In the case decided by the Florida Supreme Court, a young woman inherited a car from her grandmother and sought insurance coverage from Horace Mann Insurance Company. Instead of issuing a new policy to the young woman and advising her of her right to have uninsured motorist coverage equal to her liability coverage, Horace Mann simply inserted her name as the named insured under a policy that her father had taken out years earlier. Horace Mann did not advise her of her rights regarding uninsured motorist coverage and did not obtain the written waiver that the law requires.
After the young woman and her father were involved in a serious accident in which her father was tragically killed, she made a claim for the loss of her father under the uninsured motorist coverage of her policy. Horace Mann refused to pay uninsured motorist benefits equal to her liability coverage ($100,000), claiming that the proper amount of benefits was $25,000, because the young woman was bound by a coverage waiver that her father had signed when the policy had been sold to him. Thus, Horace Mann’s decision had the effect of depriving the young woman of $75,000 in uninsured motorist coverage.
The firm of Pajcic & Pajcic filed suit on the young woman’s behalf. The law firm argued that their client could not be bound by her father’s waiver, because she had never been given an opportunity to make a knowing selection of uninsured motorist coverage. The trial judge agreed with Pajcic & Pajcic’s position, but his decision was overruled by a court of appeal. Pajcic & Pajcic then asked the Florida Supreme Court to review this ruling, and today that court found in favor of their client. The Court ruled that, when the young woman sought insurance for her car, Horace Mann was required to advise her of her rights and obtain a written waiver of those rights, which it had failed to do.
This ruling sends a strong message to insurance companies that they should not use technicalities to deny coverage to their customers.