12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 566a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Declaratory action — Claim for declaratory relief seeking disclosure of policy information is granted where insurer chose not to provide plaintiff who was passenger injured in insured’s vehicle with copy of policy, declarations page, binders, endorsements, applications, and all documents and correspondence regarding alleged cancellation of policy requested pursuant to section 627.4137; provided plaintiff with mixed messages regarding date of policy cancellation; and opted not to provide plaintiff with statement under oath setting forth information with regard to each known policy, copy of policy, and notification of plaintiff’s rights to PIP benefits as required by section 627.7401 after receiving notice of accident or personal injury — Further, insurer’s belated furnishing of required policy information post-suit is confession of judgment
MARCUS LAWS, Plaintiff, vs. FLORIDA AUTOMOBILE JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2004-CC-009176, Div. K. March 14, 2005. Sharon H. Tanner, Judge. Counsel: D. Scott Craig, David Candelaria, and James J. Woodruff, II, Farah, Farah, & Abbott, P.A., Jacksonville. Michael I. Feldman, Christopher W. Wadsworth, and George Torres, Lydecker & Wadsworth, LLC, Miami.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come before this Court on Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Disposition for declaratory relief and this Court having reviewed parties briefs, heard the argument of both counsel, and having considered relevant Florida law, finds as follows:
1. On or about July 17, 2003, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident from which he required medical treatment.
2. Defendant issued an auto insurance policy (policy number XA3981049) to Defendant’s insured, Kassidy Hamilton, the driver of the motor vehicle in which the Plaintiff was a passenger when injured.
3. As defined by the auto insurance policy, Plaintiff was an omnibus insured.
4. Plaintiff made a claim to Defendant for no-fault benefits arising from the auto insurance policy.
5. On July 17, 2003, representatives of Plaintiff submitted a formal request pursuant to § 627.4137, Florida Statutes, requesting from the Defendant and to be produced within thirty (30) days, “a complete copy of the insurance policy,” for the insured, Kassidy Hamilton.
6. On August 15, 2003, Defendant acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff’s claim and request for policy information and stated in relevant part: “. . . .the above referenced policy cancelled . . . . no coverage was in effect . . . we suggest that you contact your patient for additional information.”
7. On January 30, 2004, representatives of Plaintiff submitted another formal request pursuant to § 627.4137, Florida Statutes, requesting “a complete certified copy of the insurance policy, including a declarations page, all binders, all endorsements, and the insurance application, and any and all correspondence and other documentation relating to the policy’s alleged cancellation.”
8. On March 1, 2004, the Defendant sent a letter which stated in relevant part: “the policy cancelled on 04/27/03 at 12:01 a.m . . . . no coverage was in effect . . . we suggest that you contact your patient for additional information.
9. On April 27, 2004, another formal request was submitted to Defendant certified mail and pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.4137, wherein Plaintiff requested from Defendant “a complete certified copy of the insurance policy, including a declarations page, all binders, all endorsements, and the insurance application, and any and all correspondence and other documentation relating to the policy’s alleged cancellation.”
10. On May 18, 2004 Defendant responded to the April 27, 2004 request and stated in relevant part “. . . .the above-referenced policy cancelled on 04/27/03 at 12:01 a.m. Therefore no coverage was in effect at the time of this loss. We suggest that you contact your insurance agent for additional information.”
11. Defendant failed to timely provide a statement, under oath, setting forth information with regard to each known policy of insurance, including the name of the insurer, name of each insured, limits of liability coverage, a copy of the policy, and notification of Plaintiff’s rights to personal injury protection benefits under the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law as required by F.S. §627.7401.
12. On or about June 24, 2004, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit under Florida Chapter 86 seeking disclosure of certain insurance information required by Fla. Stat. §§ 627.4137, 627.7401.
13. Following the filing of this lawsuit, Defendant provided the requested information.
ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Florida Legislature and the courts of Florida have acknowledged the importance of Fla. Stat. § 627.4137 and the insurer’s compliance to provide insureds or omnibus insureds with appropriate policy information. Schlosser v. Perez, 832 So.2d 179, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); ZC Ins. Co. v. Brooks, 847 So.2d 547, 551(Fla. 4th DCA 2003). It should never be presumed that the legislature intended to enact purposeless, and therefore useless, legislation. Sharver v. Hotel Corporation of America,144 So.2d 813, 817 (Fla. 1962); Palmer v. State of Florida, 838 So.2d 579, 581 (Fla. App. 1st DCA 2002). If a statute grants a right or imposes a duty, it also confers, by implication, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other. Girard Trust Co. v. Tampashores Development Co., 117 So. 786 (Fla. 1928).
The declaratory judgment act, which is afforded liberal construction, was intended to afford relief from insecurity and uncertainty with respect to rights, status and other equitable or legal relations. See Higgins v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2004 WL 2201474 (Fla. 2004); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Emery, 579 So.2d 798, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Questions of fact and disagreements concerning coverage under insurance policies are proper subjects for declaratory judgment. Id. at 801. In this case, Defendant chose not to provide Mr. Laws with certain policy information requested pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.4137 and provided Mr. Laws with a mixed message concerning the date of the policy cancellation, leaving Mr. Laws in doubt with respect to his rights, status and coverage under the policy. Additionally, the Defendant opted not to provide insurance information as required by law under Fla. Stat. § 627.7401 after receiving notice of a motor vehicle accident or personal injury.
In cases where a liability carrier failed or refused to provide specific written information as required by Fla. Stat. § 627.4137 the courts of Florida have granted Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief and specific performance under the statute. Heather Newman v. State Nat’l Specialty Ins. Co., 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 890a (Circuit Ct. for Palm Beach 2004); Rural Metro Ambulance, Inc. v. U.S. Security Ins. Co., 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 235a (County Court for Orange County 2004); Rural Metro Ambulance v. New Hampshire Indemnity Ins. Co., 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 755a (County Court for Seminole County 2004), Rom Diagnostics v. Security Nat’l Ins. Co., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 323b (County Court for Orange County, 2002); and Integra Diagnostics v. Reliance Nat’l Indemnity Co., 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 394c (County Court for Broward County 2001).
Furthermore, Defendant’s conduct in belatedly furnishing the required policy information post-suit is a confession of judgment and therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the merits. Wollard v. Lloyd’s and Companies of Lloyd’s, 439 So.2d 217, 218 (Fla. 1983).
It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Disposition is GRANTED.
2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
3. The Court reserves jurisdiction for the taxation of costs and attorneys fees as may be appropriate
.* * *
