14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 129a
Insurance — Automobile — Gap policy — Jurisdiction — County court — Appeal of county court’s dismissal of action brought by owner of vehicle totaled in accident against defendant that did not indemnify owner pursuant to gap policy in which defendant agreed to pay owner difference between outstanding balance of car loan and vehicle’s actual cash value in event of total loss, upon finding that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address sole remaining issue of attorney’s fees and costs following entry of default and defendant’s payment of damages because defendant is not insurer, but motor vehicle service agreement company — Chapter 634, which governs motor vehicle service agreements and grants jurisdiction to circuit court for violation of statute, is not applicable because gap policy sold by defendant did not indemnify against loss caused by failure of mechanical or other component part of vehicle and, therefore, was not motor vehicle service agreement — Rather, where gap policy indemnified owner against loss greater than value of totaled vehicle, but less than outstanding loan amount, defendant was operating as insurer outside of its authority under chapter 634 — No merit to defendant’s argument that it cannot be insurer because license as motor vehicle service agreement company prevents it from simultaneously being insurer where defendant’s answer to complaint refers to “gap insurance contract” and policy refers to “gap protection” and “gap addendum” throughout — Because defendant was acting as insurer pursuant to Insurance Code, county court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction