1 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 175a
Insurance — Insurer strictly complied with statutory requirements relating to notice of cancellation of policy — Plaintiffs’ denial of receipt of the notice in their response to request for admissions is insufficient as a matter of law to create a genuine issue of material fact that the notice was not sent to plaintiffs — Insurer’s motion for summary judgment granted
ANNA HARRELL, a minor, by and through her father, and next friend, TRAVIS HARRELL, and TRAVIS HARRELL, individually, and SHARON HARRELL, individually, Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, DONALD WALKER, and SHIRLEY RODRIGUEZ, Defendants. In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. General Civil Division, Division “C”. Case No. 91-10375. December 8, 1992. Richard A. Lazzara, Judge. Joseph Rousselle, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs. Howard Weber, Tampa, FL, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On December 4, 1992 the court heard oral argument on the Defendant Progressive American Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment directed to the Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. Following the hearing the court reserved ruling. The court has now had the opportunity to review the relevant pleadings, admissions and affidavits on file, to consider the oral and written argument of counsel, and to engage in its own independent research of the law. Based on a careful analysis of all of these factors, the court grants the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The court specifically finds that (1) the Defendant Progressive strictly complied with the notice of cancellation requirements of section 627.728(5), Florida Statutes (1989) and (2) the Plaintiffs’ blanket denial of non-receipt of the notice in their Response to Request for Admissions is insufficient as a matter of law to create a genuine issue of the material fact that the notice was not sent to the Plaintiffs. Boman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 505 So.2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Bankers Insurance Company v. Pannunzio, 538 So.2d 61,62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (holding pursuant to section 627.848, Florida Statutes (1981) that official “United States Postal Service Certificate of Mailing” demonstrating that notice of intent to cancel “was mailed to the insured at the address given by him prevails, as a matter of law, over the insured’s self-serving denial of receipt of this and other mailing”)1; Hoy v. Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company, 578 So.2d 2, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (to effectively cancel workers’ compensation policy pursuant to section 440.42, Florida Statutes (1983), it is not necessary to prove receipt of notification by the insured but only that notice was sent pursuant to the statute.)
Therefore, for the reasons expressed, the Defendant Progressive American Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
— — — —
1The Second District Court of Appeal’s recent certification of conflict with this case in Cooke v. Insurance Company of North America, 603 So.2d 520 (1992) does not prohibit this court from relying on it for the proposition cited. Cooke only disagreed with Pannunzio to the extent that Pannunzio did not require the insurer to confirm that the notice requirements of the statute had been satisfied by the premium finance company before canceling the insurance policy. Indeed, the court in Cooke specifically found that “[T]he facts in Pannunzio are distinguishable from the facts here. In this case, there is no proof whatsoever of mailing the notice of intent to cancel.” 603 So.2d at 523.
* * *
