2 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 7b
Insurance — Automobile — Cancellation of policy — Notice of cancellation sent to insured by premium finance company after insured failed to make premium payment on time was in full compliance with statute — Policy was properly canceled by premium finance company when insured failed to pay premium by cancellation date — Insurer did not have separate obligation to provide notice of cancellation to insured
APPCO FINANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, vs. DIANA PUENTES, Appellee. 11th Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division. Case No. 92-368 AP. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. DIANA PUENTES, Appellee. Case No. 92-355 AP. Opinion filed October 8, 1993. An Appeal from County Court for Dade County, Ann Mason Parker, Judge. Gail Leverett, for appellant Appco Finance Corporation. Jose Leonardo, for appellant General Insurance Company. Juan Gonzalez, for appellee Diana Puentes.
(Before Michael Salmon, Gerald D. Hubbart and Judith Kreeger, JJ.)
(HUBBART, J.) Defendants General Insurance Company (“General”) and Appco Finance Corporation (“Appco”) seek review of a judgment entered against them and in favor of the Plaintiff Diana Puentes (“Puentes”) after a non-jury trial. For the reasons stated below, we reverse.
In February of 1991, Puentes purchased insurance for her automobile from General Insurance. The premium was paid by Appco pursuant to a premium finance agreement with Puentes. The agreement permitted Appco to cancel the policy with General if Puentes failed to make her monthly payments to Appco.
Puentes’ seventh payment was due on September 20, 1991. It was not received and on September 25, Appco mailed a notice of intent to cancel the policy to Puentes unless payment was received within ten days. A second warning notice of intent to cancel was mailed by Appco to Puentes on October 7. On October 15, Appco sent a notice of cancellation to General, with a copy to Puentes, and on October 22, General sent Puentes a notice that her insurance was cancelled effective October 15.
On October 22, Appco received Puentes’ check for the September payment dated and mailed on October 12. The final payment was received on October 25. Appco sent written acknowledgment to Puentes when each check was received telling her that her insurance still remained cancelled and that she should contact her insurance agent to get her insurance reinstated. Puentes denied receiving any of the above-mentioned notices from either Appco or General.
On October 30, Puentes was involved in an auto accident and later presented a claim to General. General refused to pay as the policy had been cancelled. Puentes then brought suit against General and Appco, among others. The trial court concluded that Puentes had complied with the terms of the finance agreement and that the policy had been ineffectively cancelled. Judgment was entered in favor of Puentes on the issue of liability. This appeal follows.
The uncontroverted facts show that the notice of cancellation was sent to Puentes because of her failure to make the September 20 payment on time. That notice was in full compliance with Section 627.848 Fla. Stats. (1991). Puentes’ testimony that she did not receive that notice is of no significance since the statute requires that the notice be mailed, not that it be served. See Bankers Ins. Co. v. Pannunzio, 538 So.2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The notice required that payment be received — not just mailed — before the cancellation date. The uncontroverted evidence was that the September payment was not received by Appco until October 22, well past the cancellation date. Since Appco complied with statutory requirements, the policy was properly cancelled for Puentes’ non-compliance.
Puentes has argued that, notwithstanding any compliance by Appco with Section 627.848, General was required to give ten days notice of cancellation to Puentes under Section 627.7282. That statute is not applicable since it applies to cancellations by insurance companies for, inter alia, non-payment of premium. General, however, did not cancel the policy. Appco did as Puentes’ attorney-in-fact for her non-compliance with the premium finance agreement. Furthermore, the contention advanced by Puentes was rejected by the Third District Court of Appeal in Tate v. Hamilton Insurance Co., 466 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Therefore, General was under no obligation to notice Puentes that her insurance had been cancelled.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Appco and General on the issue of liability. (MICHAEL SALMON and JUDITH KREEGER, JJ. concur.)
* * *
