25 Fla. L. Weekly D531a

Insurance — Automobile liability — Leased vehicles — Court properly entered summary judgment determining that automobile rental agreement contained language which properly shifted responsibility for primary liability coverage from lessor to lessee and his insurance carrier — Error to enter summary judgment on lessee’s claim that he detrimentally relied on misstatements by lessor’s employees in declining to purchase supplemental insurance where there are unresolved facts as to that issue

MATTHEW JAMES, Appellant, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D99-0267. Opinion filed March 1, 2000. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Catherine M. Brunson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 97-10687 AH. Counsel: Daniel Le Vay and Susan R. Kent, of the Law Offices of Figueroa, Gonzalez & Hoecker, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Bard D. Rockenbach of Sellars, Marion & Bachi, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

(SHAHOOD, J.) We affirm in part and reverse in part appellant’s appeal from Summary Final Judgment in favor of appellee. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the insurance shifting language contained in appellee’s rental agreement was in 10-point type in conformity with section 627.7263, Florida Statutes.

We reverse and remand summary final judgment on the grounds that appellant’s first affirmative defense created issues of material fact. In his first affirmative defense, appellant argued estoppel on the grounds (1) that the language contained in the rental agreement shifting responsibility for primary coverage to its lessees did not comply with Florida law, and (2)¹ that he relied on alleged statements and/or misstatements by Hertz employees, and thus, declined to purchase supplemental insurance. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the automobile rental agreement contained language which properly shifted responsibility for primary liability coverage from appellee to appellant and his insurance carrier. However, we hold that issues of material fact exist as to appellant’s claim of detrimental reliance with respect to the purported statements made by the Hertz employees to appellant.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded. (WARNER, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.)

________

¹Although appellant makes reference in the second ground of his first affirmative defense to Hertz being “further estopped,” the second ground is in fact detrimental reliance, and not estoppel.