28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 483a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806PETE
Insurance — Automobile — Personal injury protection — Application — Misrepresentations — Materiality — Garage address — Evidence — Examination under oath is admissible under exception to hearsay rule applicable to admission by party and statement by opposing party — Policy was properly rescinded, and therefore void ab initio, based on insured’s failure to disclose correct garaging address of insured vehicle
DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT LEE PETERSON, ROSE ANN TUCKER and ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER, Defendants. Circuit Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2020-CA-329. August 10, 2020. John Marshall Kest, Judge. Counsel: Alexander L. Avarello, McFarlane Law, Coral Springs, for Plaintiff. Rose Ann Tucker, Melbourne, and Ariel Vernee Tucker, Orlando, pro se, Defendants.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF, DIRECT GENERALINSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FORFINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS,ROSE ANN TUCKER AND ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER
THIS CAUSE having come before this Court at the hearing on July 31, 2020, on the Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment against the Defendants, ROSE ANN TUCKER AND ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER, and the Court having considered the same, it is hereupon,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be, and the same is hereby GRANTED, as follows:
Factual Background
Plaintiff, Direct General Insurance Company brought the instant Declaratory Action against the named insured, Robert Lee Peterson, and the Defendants, Rose Ann Tucker and Ariel Vernee Tucker, regarding the policy rescission as a result of the insured, Mr. Peterson’s material misrepresentation on the renewal application for insurance dated September 16, 2017. Plaintiff rescinded the policy of insurance on the basis that Robert Lee Peterson failed to disclose that the insured vehicle would be garaged at 4708 Carmel St., Orlando, FL 32808 rather than at the policy garaging address of 1351 S State Road 545, Winter Garden, FL 34787, at the time of policy renewal on September 26, 2017, and had he disclosed this information the Plaintiff would not have issued the policy on the same terms, namely Plaintiff would have charged a higher premium to issue the policy.
Mr. Robert Lee Peterson completed a renewal application for a policy of automobile insurance from Direct General Insurance Company on September 16, 2017. Mr. Robert Lee Peterson failed to disclose that the insured vehicle would be garaged at 4708 Carmel St., Orlando, FL 32808 rather than at the policy garaging address of 1351 S State Road 545, Winter Garden, FL 34787, when completing the renewal application for insurance. In addition, the insured, Mr. Robert Lee Peterson, signed the application on page 4 of the application for insurance, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
“I acknowledge that all regular operators of my vehicle(s) have been reported to the Company. I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALL PERSONS AGES 14 AND OLDER WHO LIVE WITH ME HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO THE COMPANY. I further acknowledge and agree that I will report to the company any person who becomes a regular operator of my insured vehicle(s) or who become residents of my household during the term of the policy within thirty (30) days of such occurrence. I have reported any business use or commercial use of my vehicle to the company. I acknowledge that my principle residence/place of vehicle garaging is in the state set forth herein at least ten (10) months each year. I hereby authorize the Company to order the transfer of any vehicle, which is the subject of a loss under any policy issued by the Company, to a location where storage costs will be reduced if the vehicle is disabled. . .
. . .I hereby acknowledge that I have read and understood all the questions, statements, and information set forth in the application, including this Applicant Statements. I hereby represent that my answers and all information provided by me or on my behalf contained in this application is accurate and complete.”
Following the June 29, 2019 motor vehicle accident, an Examination Under Oath (EUO) was taken of the Defendant, Robert Lee Peterson, on August 12, 2019, wherein Mr. Peterson disclosed under oath to Plaintiff that at the time of the renewal application for insurance the insured vehicle was garaged at 4708 Carmel St., Orlando, FL 32808 rather than the policy garaging address of 1351 S State Road 545, Winter Garden, FL 34787. Plaintiff determined that had Robert Lee Peterson provided the proper information at the time of the renewal application for insurance dated September 16, 2017, then Robert Lee Peterson would have been charged a higher premium rate. Therefore, Direct General Insurance Company declared the policy void ab initio due to material misrepresentation and returned the paid premiums to Robert Lee Peterson. Due to the policy being declared void ab initio the Plaintiff denied coverage for the subject motor vehicle accident.
On August 12, 2019 during the Examination Under Oath of Defendant, Robert Lee Peterson, he provided sworn testimony admitting that at the time of the renewal application for insurance dated September 16, 2017, the insured vehicle was garaged at 4708 Carmel St., Orlando, FL 32808 rather than the policy garaging address of 1351 S State Road 545, Winter Garden, FL 34787, as follows:
Q: And can you just read me the address that is on your driver’s license?
A: 4708 Cannel Street.
Q: And is that your current place of residence?
A: Yes.
Q: And how long have your resided at this address?
A: Three years, I think, three to four years.
See pages 5-6 of the transcript of the EUO of Robert Lee Peterson.
—————————————————————————-
Q: 1351 South State Road 545, Winter Garden, Florida. Was that –
A: That was my address before this one.
Q: Okay. And so when was the last time you resided at that address?
A: I think it was 2000 — I think it was 2012 or 2013.
Q: Okay. Did you ever notify Direct General that your address changed?
A: No, I didn’t.
See page 11 of the transcript of the EUO of Robert Lee Peterson.
Counsel for the Plaintiff represented to the Court that the statements made by Robert Lee Peterson at his Examination Under Oath are admissible based on the Florida Rules of Evidence and Florida Statute § 90.803(18). Specifically, the statements made by Robert Lee Peterson at his Examination Under Oath are admissible as an exception to hearsay as an admission and/or statement by an opposing party.
Plaintiff, Direct General Insurance Company, argued in their summary judgment that, as both the statute and the binding appellate decisions state, materiality of the risk is determined by the insurer, not the insured. See Fla. Stat. 627.409. As the Fla. Supreme Court ruled “[t]he statute recognizes the principals of law that a contract issued on a mutual mistake of fact is subject to being voided and defines the circumstances for the application of this principle. This Court cannot grant [**10] an exception to a statute nor can we construe an unambiguous statute different from its plain meaning.” Continental Assurance Co. v. Carroll, 485 So. 2d 406, 409, (FLA 1986). Therefore, the insurer determines materiality. Therefore, to ensure both parties enter the contract with full understanding, the Plaintiff is entitled to all information that Plaintiff deems necessary to determine the risk. Additionally, the Legislature allows an insurer to rescind for a material misrepresentation, regardless of the insured’s intent, and thus the Legislature clearly burdened the applicant with the duty to fully disclose all requested information. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salgado, 22 So.3d 594 (3rd DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D1578a]. It was the Plaintiff’s position that Plaintiff properly rescinded the policy at issue based on the failure to disclose the correct garaging address for the insured vehicle as the terms were unambiguous within the application.
Pursuant to the policy of insurance issued to Robert Lee Peterson, Direct General Insurance Company may void the insurance policy as follows:
FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
The statements made by you in any application for insurance or policy change are deemed your representations. A misrepresentation; omission; concealment of fact; or incorrect statement may prevent recovery under this policy if:
1. The misrepresentation; omission; concealment; or statement is fraudulent or is material either to the acceptance of the risk or to the hazard assumed by us; or
2. Had we known the facts, we in good faith would not have:
a. Issued the policy;
b. Issued the policy at the same premium rate;
c. Issued the policy with the limits shown;
d. Issued this policy with these terms and conditions; or
e. Provided the coverage-with respect to the hazard resulting in the accident or loss.
Further, Florida Statute § 627.409(1) provides:
(1) Any statement or description made by or on behalf of an insured or annuitant in an application for an insurance policy or annuity contract, or in negotiations for a policy or contract, is a representation and not a warranty. Except as provided in subsection (3), a misrepresentation, omission, concealment of fact, or incorrect statement may prevent recovery under the contract or policy only if any of the following apply:
(a) The misrepresentation, omission, concealment, or statement is fraudulent or is material to the acceptance of the risk or to the hazard assumed by the insurer.
(b) If the true facts had been known to the insurer pursuant to a policy requirement or other requirement, the insurer in good faith would not have issued the policy or contract, would not have issued it at the same premium rate, would not have issued a policy or contract in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss.
On May 20, 2020, this Court executed an Order granting Default Final Judgment against the Defendant, Robert Lee Peterson, confirming the material misrepresentation at the time of the application for insurance dated September 16, 2017. Further, on May 29, 2020, this Honorable Court executed a Final Judgment against the Defendant, Robert Lee Peterson, and in favor of the Plaintiff, Direct General Insurance Company.
Analysis Regarding Whether the Failure to Disclosethe Correct Garaging Address for the Insured Vehicleon the Renewal Application for Insurance was Material
The Court ruled that the question of materiality is considered from the perspective of the insurer. The Court found that “(a] material misrepresentation in an application for insurance, whether or not made with knowledge of its correctness or untruth, will nullify any policy issued and is an absolute defense to enforcement of the policy.” United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salgado, 22 So.3d 594 (3rd DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D1578a]. The Court ruled that the failure to disclose the correct garaging address for the insured vehicle that would have caused the insurer to issue the policy at a higher rate is sufficient to support a rescission. See Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch. v. Clark, 174 So. 3d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D1810a]. Additionally, the Court found that as Defendants, Rose Ann Tucker and Ariel Vernee Tucker failed to provide testimony to contradict Plaintiff’s claim that the disclosure would have caused Plaintiff to issue the policy at a higher premium rate, then Plaintiff was entitled to rescind. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Sahlen, 999 F.2d 1532 (1993).
Additionally, the Court found that the affiant, Lisa Robison, provided sworn testimony to knowledge of the application for insurance and administration of the underwriting guidelines for the insurance policy issued to Robert Lee Peterson, and could claim personal knowledge from a review of the records, therefore, Plaintiff’s affiant, Ms. Robison, satisfied the threshold to satisfy the business records exception. See Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Berdecia, 169 So. 3d 209, 213 [40 Fla. L. Weekly D1502a]. Consequently, Plaintiff established without contrary evidence that the misrepresentation was material, as set forth in the Affidavit of Lisa Robison.
Analysis Regarding Whether the Statementsat the Examination Under Oath (EUO) of Robert Lee Petersonare Admissible Evidence for Summary Judgment
The Court agreed with the Plaintiff, Direct General Insurance Company’s position that the statements provided by Robert Lee Peterson at his Examination Under Oath (EUO) on August 12, 2019 are admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule applicable to an admission by a party and as a statement by an opposing party. In addition, an unsworn recorded statement of the insured is also admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule applicable to an admission by a party and as a statement by an opposing party.
The Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Appellate Division, ruled in Star Casualty Ins. Co. v. Eduardo J. Garrido D.C., P.A., a/a/o Huegette D. Garay, that an examination under oath is admissible under the exception to hearsay rule applicable to admission by a party, and ruled that the trial court erred by holding the examination under oath transcript was inadmissible and improper summary judgment evidence. See Star Casualty Ins. Co. v. Eduardo J. Garrido D.C., P.A., a/a/o Huegette D. Garay, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 502a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. October 3, 2017).
The insured’s examination under oath (EUO) transcript is admissible and proper summary judgment evidence. Although an EUO transcript is not an affidavit or deposition, it holds the same evidentiary value and fits under “other materials as would be admissible in evidence” under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c). See Star Casualty Ins. Co., 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 502a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. October 3, 2017). Although an EUO transcript is hearsay, it is admissible under the party admission hearsay exception [§ 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. (2014)]. Smith v. Fortune Ins. Co., 44 So. 2d 821, 823 (Fla 1st DCA 1981); Millennium Diagnostic Imaging Ctr. a/a/o Alejandro Gonzalez v. Allstate Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 84a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. June 21, 2016) and cert. denied, 2017 WL 2561208 (Fla. 3d DCA May 25, 2017) (without opposition) (same issue) (both the instant insured’s and Francisco Garay’s EUO testimony was determined to be admissible to support a motion for summary judgment for material misrepresentation citing section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes, Smith and Gonzalez).
Therefore, the Court finds that the Examination Under Oath (EUO) transcript of Robert Lee Peterson is admissible and proper summary judgment evidence.
Conclusion
This Court finds that the Plaintiff, Direct General Insurance Company’s renewal application for insurance dated September 16, 2017, unambiguously required Defendant, Robert Lee Peterson, to disclose that the insured vehicle was garaged at 4708 Carmel St., Orlando, FL 32808 rather than the policy garaging address of 1351 S State Road 545, Winter Garden, FL 34787, that Plaintiff provided the required testimony to establish said that Defendant, Robert Lee Peterson’s failure to disclose the correct garaging address for the insured vehicle was a material misrepresentation because Plaintiff would not have issued the policy on the same terms, and thus Plaintiff properly rescinded the subject policy of insurance. Consequently, Plaintiff properly denied coverage for the loss at issue.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
a. Plaintiff, Direct General Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED;
b. This Court hereby enters final judgment for Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and against the Defendants, ROSE ANN TUCKER AND ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER;
c. The Court finds that the facts alleged by the Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, in its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and in the Affidavit of Lisa Robison, are not in dispute, which are as follows:
i. The Defendant, ROBERT LEE PETERSON, failed to disclose the insured vehicle was garaged at 4708 Carmel St., Orlando, FL 32808 rather than the policy garaging address of 1351 S State Road 545, Winter Garden, FL 34787 at the time of the renewal application for insurance dated September 16, 2017, which occurred prior to the assignment of any benefits under the policy of insurance, bearing policy # FLPA399508064, issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
ii. There is no insurance coverage for the named insured, ROBERT LEE PETERSON for any accidental death coverage, property damage liability coverage, bodily injury liability coverage, comprehensive coverage, collision coverage or personal injury protection coverage, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
iii. There is no insurance coverage for ROSE ANN TUCKER for any accidental death coverage, property damage liability coverage, bodily injury liability coverage, comprehensive coverage, collision coverage or personal injury protection coverage, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
iv. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, has no duty to defend and/or indemnify the insured, ROBERT LEE PETERSON, for any claims made under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
v. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, has no duty to defend and/or indemnify ROSE ANN TUCKER for any claims made under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
vi. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, owes no duty to defend and/or indemnify ROBERT LEE PETERSON for any bodily injury claim for ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER arising from the accident of June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
vii. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, owes no duty to defend and/or indemnify ROSE ANN TUCKER for any bodily injury claim for ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER arising from the accident of June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
viii. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, owes no duty to defend and/or indemnify ROBERT LEE PETERSON for any bodily injury claim for Xanareiia A Howard (minor) arising from the accident of June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
ix. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, owes no duty to defend and/or indemnify ROSE ANN TUCKER for any bodily injury claim for Xanareiia A Howard (minor) arising from the accident of June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
x. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, owes no duty to defend and/or indemnify ROBERT LEE PETERSON for any bodily injury claim for Jurnee Peterson (minor) arising from the accident of June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xi. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, owes no duty to defend and/or indemnify ROSE ANN TUCKER for any bodily injury claim for Jurnee Peterson (minor) arising from the accident of June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xii. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, owes no duty to defend and/or indemnify ROBERT LEE PETERSON for any bodily injury claim for Mitzi Lynn Cruz arising from the accident of June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xiii. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, owes no duty to defend and/or indemnify ROSE ANN TUCKER for any bodily injury claim for Mitzi Lynn Cruz arising from the accident of June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xiv. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, owes no duty to defend and/or indemnify ROBERT LEE PETERSON for any property damage claim for Mitzi Lynn Cruz arising from the accident of June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xv. The Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, owes no duty to defend and/or indemnify ROSE ANN TUCKER for any property damage claim for Mitzi Lynn Cruz arising from the accident of June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xvi. There is no personal injury protection (“PIP”) insurance coverage for ROSE ANN TUCKER for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xvii. There is no personal injury protection (“PIP”) insurance coverage for ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xviii. There is no personal injury protection (“PIP”) insurance coverage for Xanareiia A. howard, a minor, for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xix. There is no personal injury protection (“PIP”) insurance coverage for Jurnee Peterson, a minor, for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xx. There is no insurance coverage for any property damage claim for Mitzi Lynn Cruz for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xxi. There is no insurance coverage for any bodily injury claim for ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xxii. There is no insurance coverage for any bodily injury claim for Xanareiia A Howard (minor) for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xxiii. There is no insurance coverage for any bodily injury claim for Jurnee Peterson (minor) for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xxiv. There is no insurance coverage for any bodily injury claim for Mitzi Lynn Cruz for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xxv. There is no comprehensive insurance coverage for ROBERT LEE PETERSON for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xxvi. There is no collision insurance coverage for ROBERT LEE PETERSON for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # F LA DXXXXX9342;
xxvii. There is no obligation to provide Personal Injury Protection benefits coverage to Central Florida Medical & Chiropractic Center Inc., d/b/a Sterling Medical Group for treatment of injuries alleged to be a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xxviii. There is no obligation to provide Personal Injury Protection benefits coverage to Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Adventhealth Winter Park for treatment of injuries alleged to be a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xix. The Defendant, ROBERT LEE PETERSON, is excluded from any insurance coverage under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342, for the June 29, 2019 accident;
xxx. The Defendant, ROSE ANN TUCKER, is excluded from any insurance coverage under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342, for the June 29, 2019 accident;
xxxi. The Defendant, ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER, is excluded from any insurance coverage under the policy of insurance issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342, for the June 29, 2019 accident;
xxxii. Xanareiia A Howard (minor) is excluded from any insurance coverage under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342, for the June 29, 2019 accident;
xxxiii. Jurnee Peterson (minor) is excluded from any insurance coverage under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342, for the June 29, 2019 accident;
xxxiv. Mitzi Lynn Cruz is excluded from any insurance coverage under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342, for the June 29, 2019 accident;
xxxv. Central Florida Medical & Chiropractic Center Inc., d/b/a Sterling Medical Group is excluded from any insurance coverage under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342, for the June 29, 2019 accident;
xxxvi. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Adventhealth Winter Park is excluded from any insurance coverage under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342, for the June 29, 2019 accident;
xxxvii. There is no insurance coverage for the motor vehicle accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xxxviii. There is no personal injury protection (“PIP”) insurance coverage for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xxxix. There is no accidental death insurance coverage for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xl. There is no property damage liability coverage for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xli. There is no bodily injury liability coverage for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xlii. There is no comprehensive insurance coverage for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xliii. There is no collision insurance coverage for the accident which occurred on June 29, 2019, under the policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, under policy # FLADXXXXX9342;
xliv. Since the policy of insurance issued to the Defendant, ROBERT LEE PETERSON, bearing policy # FLADXXXXX9342, is rescinded and is void ab initio, any assignment of personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits from ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER to Central Florida Medical & Chiropractic Center Inc., d/b/a Sterling Medical Group is void;
xlv. Since the policy of insurance issued to the Defendant, ROBERT LEE PETERSON, bearing policy # FLADXXXXX9342, is rescinded and is void ab initio, any assignment of personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits from ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER to Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Adventhealth Winter Park is void.
xlvi. Since the policy of insurance issued to the Defendant, ROBERT LEE PETERSON, bearing policy # FLADXXXXX9342, is rescinded and is void ab initio, any assignment of personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits from ARIEL VERNEE TUCKER to any medical provider, medical facility and/or doctor is void;
xlvii. Since the policy of insurance issued to the Defendant, ROBERT LEE PETERSON, bearing policy # FLADXXXXX9342, is rescinded and is void ab initio, any assignment of personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits from ROSE ANN TUCKER to any medical provider, medical facility and/or doctor is void;
xlviii. Since the policy of insurance issued to the Defendant, ROBERT LEE PETERSON, bearing policy # FLADXXXXX9342, is rescinded and is void ab initio, any assignment of personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits from Xanareiia A. Howard, a minor, to any medical provider, medical facility and/or doctor is void;
xlix. Since the policy of insurance issued to the Defendant, ROBERT LEE PETERSON, bearing policy # FLADXXXXX9342, is rescinded and is void ab initio, any assignment of personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits from Jurnee Peterson, a minor, to any medical provider, medical facility and/or doctor is void;
l. The DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Policy of Insurance, bearing policy # FLADXXXXX9342, is rescinded and is void ab initio.
