Case Search

Please select a category.

DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. JAMES HARRIS, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 403a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2805HARR

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Rescission of policy — Material misrepresentations on application — Omission of household member — Insurer violated PIP statute by failing to pay or deny claim within 30 days and failed to invoke additional time limitation under section 627.736(4)(i) — Rescission of policy was improper

DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. JAMES HARRIS, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. Circuit Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 18-CA-009312. JAMES HARRIS, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. Case No. 18-CC-057973. July 14, 2020. Ralph C. Stoddard, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Patrick Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, James Harris.

ORDER GRANTING HARRIS’ AMENDEDMOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER having come before the court on July 13, 2020 on Defendant/ Counter-Plaintiff Harris’ Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment. The court having listened to argument by counsel, having reviewed the Motion, file, applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, finds,

1. This is a consolidated Declaratory action under Florida Statutes Chapter 86 seeking a coverage declaration based upon Defendant’s rescission of the subject policy. Defendant’s rescission was based upon an alleged material misrepresentation for an alleged failure to list household members on the insurance application by the named insured, James Harris.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeks entry of summary judgment arguing that Defendant violated the PIP statute by failing to pay or deny the claim within 30 days and did not invoke the additional time limitation under Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(i), and as such, Defendant was in breach of contract and Defendant’s rescission of the policy was improper.

3. The Court bases its ruling on the filed deposition transcript of Marcy Sessions, Defendant’s Claims Corporate Representative, conducted on June 3, 2019. Ms. Sessions testified that Defendant received notice of the loss on July 30, 2018, the first medical bills were received on August 13, 2018, Defendant rescinded the policy on September 13, 2018 and mailed premium refund payments to its insured on September 17, 2018.

4. Defendant violated the PIP statute by failing to pay or deny the claim within 30 days and did not invoke the additional time limitation under Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(i), and as such, Defendant was in breach of contract and Defendant’s rescission of the policy was improper. As such, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment is HEREBY GRANTED.

5. The Court reserves jurisdiction over attorney’s fees and costs.

Skip to content