10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 178a
Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Waiver — Where insured rejected uninsured motorist coverage when initially purchasing policy, insured suspended coverages while out of the country, and then reinstated original coverages upon returning to country, insurer was not required to obtain a new waiver of uninsured motorist coverage at time of reinstatement of coverage — Summary judgment in favor of insurer granted
MANHAR SEJPAL, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Circuit Court 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 01-5520, Division “F”. January 21, 2003. Robert J. Simms, Judge. Counsel: George A. Vaka, for Plaintiff. Karen A. Barnett, Barnett & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
This cause having come before the Court on December 30, 2002 on Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court having heard argument of counsel, having reviewed memoranda submitted and being otherwise advised in the issues hereby finds as follows:
1. That at the time Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage with Defendant, which was on or about November 8, 1999, Plaintiff clearly rejected uninsured motorist coverage as demonstrated by Exhibits “C” and “D” to Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment.
2. That on or about November 16, 1999, Plaintiff suspended certain coverages for a period of time, as he planned to be out of the country indefinitely. In order to reduce his premiums during this time period, Plaintiff executed a certification that the motor vehicle would be withdrawn from use, as demonstrated by Exhibit “E” to Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. That upon returning to Tampa on or about April 25, 2000, Plaintiff reinstated the coverages he had suspended, which included the $100,000 per person/$300,000 per occurrence coverages for bodily injury liability.
4. That the Court finds that by reinstating all of the coverages originally contracted for on November 8, 1999, the Plaintiff was merely reinstating his suspended coverages under an existing policy, and no new policy was ever created after November 8, 1999. As such, the Court finds that there was no requirement on the part of Defendant State Farm to obtain a new waiver of uninsured motorist coverage.
5. The Court finds because the existing policy remained in force and a new policy was not issued on April 25, 2000, that it was not necessary for Defendant State Farm to obtain a new waiver of uninsured motorist coverage.
6. That because the Court finds that Plaintiff did not increase or reduce his bodily injury coverages, but merely reinstated the identical coverages in the same amount as initially purchased, there was no requirement for Defendant to obtain a new selection/rejection form for uninsured motorist coverage at the time Plaintiff reinstated his $100,000/$3000,000 limits of bodily injury coverage.
WHEREUPON it is hereby ordered and adjudged that Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED. Final judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant. The Court retains jurisdiction only as to Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs.
* * *
