4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 260a
Insurance — Automobile — Cancellation of policy after insured failed to respond to notice of additional premium — Insurer violated statute when it cancelled plaintiff’s policies several weeks after cancellation date specified in notice and charged an additional premium for the improper coverage period — Both statute and provisions of insurance policy required that, in assessing an additional premium, insurer notify insured of date on which policy will be cancelled if insured takes no action
JOSE M. RODRIGUEZ and JOSE ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNION AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, General Jurisdiction Division. Case No. 93-02469. August 7, 1995. Murray Goldman, Judge.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE CAME ON TO BE HEARD on July 24, 1995 upon Plaintiffs, JOSE M. RODRIGUEZ and JOSE ANGEL RODRIGUEZ individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Defendant, UNION AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. This court has considered argument of counsel, memoranda submitted by the parties, authorities relied upon by the parties, the Defendant’s insurance policy and the entire court file, and it being otherwise fully advised in the premises:
This court finds as a matter of law that Defendant UNION AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY improperly retained/earned insurance premiums for the period between:
(a) – the dates specified in the Notices of Additional Premium required by the Defendant’s policy and Florida Statutes Section 627.7282, which are the dates for cancellation or termination of the policies in the event the insureds take no action in response to an additional premium notice; and
(b) – the dates on which the insurance policies were actually cancelled by Defendant, which were used by Defendant in computing how much, if any, of the premiums paid by plaintiffs should be returned to the plaintiffs.
This court presumes that the Florida legislature had a valid purpose in enacting Florida Statutes Section 627.7282. Florida Statutes Section 627.7282(1)(c) clearly and unambiguously requires that “the date on which the policy will be canceled [in the event the insured takes no action] shall be stated in the notice” of additional premium.
Florida Statutes Section 627.7282(3) as confirmed by the legislative history requires that:
No insurer shall unilaterally alter or modify the policy period for a private passenger automobile insurance policy to provide an expiration date that is prior to the date specified in the policyholder’s application, except as provided in this section.
Defendant’s cancellation of the policy subsequent to the date specified in the Notice of Additional Premium operates as a “unilateral alteration or modification of the policy period” in a manner not authorized by law.
Independently of the provisions of Florida Statutes Section 627.7282, the Defendant’s insurance policy requires that in assessing an insured an additional premium, the insurer is required to notify the insured of the date in which the policy will be cancelled if the insured takes no action. Thus, the contract itself requires that the Defendant abide by the date specified in the notice of additional premium as the last date it is permitted to assess premiums to its insureds.
Independent of the provisions of Florida Statutes and the Defendant’s insurance policy, the Notice of Additional Premium directed by the insurer to the insured sets forth the date of termination of the policy. Having expressly advised the insureds of the last date of coverage under the policy in the event the insurer neither pays the additional premium or requests an earlier cancellation, the insurer cannot subsequently assess premiums beyond that date.
Based Upon the Foregoing findings, it is hereupon ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same is hereby DENIED.
* * *
