GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
GEICO appeals a summary judgment ruling that upheld the higher $25,000/$50,000 liability limits on an insured's newly acquired vehicle, rather than the lower $15,000/$30,000 limits the insured requested. The court reverses, holding that an insured's request for reduced coverage can be applied retroactively to the effective date of the request, even if processed after an intervening accident.
Yes. An insured's request for a change in policy terms, including a request for reduced coverage, may be processed retroactively and applied as of the effective date of the request, even if an accident occurs after the request date but before the processing date.
[1] An insured's request for a change in insurance policy terms may be processed retroactively, and if an accident occurs after the effective date of the request but prior to…
[2] An insured's notification of a desire for the minimum coverage required by law negates an "automatic insurance" clause providing for higher coverage on a subsequently acq…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an insured's request for a change in policy terms may be processed retroactively, and if an accident occurs after the effective date but prior to the processing date, the policy applies as changed”
Establishes the legal principle that policy changes can have retroactive effect when an accident occurs between the request date and processing date
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1976, David Cooley had a GEICO insurance policy with $25,000/$50,000 liability limits and an automatic insurance clause covering subsequently acqui…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH,. Judge.
Government Employees Insurance Co. (GEICO) appeals an order granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. (State Farm). GEICO’s insured was involved in an automobile accident with State Farm’s insured, and a dispute arose as to the amount of coverage under the GEICO policy.
In 1976, David Cooley and GEICO entered into an insurance agreement which contained a $25,000 per person/$50,000 per occurrence liability limit. The policy also contained an “automatic insurance” clause providing coverage for subsequently acquired vehicles if:
insured notifies the company within 30 days after the date of such acquisition of his election to make this and no other policy issued by the company applicable to such automobile. .
Mr. Cooley acquired another automobile and by a letter posted June 8,1976, notified GEICO that “I only want the amount of coverage on it that the law of Florida requires of me.” Florida law at the time required coverage of $15,000 per person/$30,000 per occurrence.
After the above letter had been mailed but before it was received by GEICO, Mr. Cooley, while driving his new auto, was involved in a collision with State Farm’s insured. Mr. Cooley’s letter was thereafter received by GEICO, and coverage on the new auto was endorsed with a $15,000/$30,-000 limit, effective as of June 8. It was standard company policy to give such a request retroactive effect, and GEICO was as yet unaware of Mr. Cooley’s recent accident.
The trial judge, in granting summary judgment in State Farm’s favor, ruled that the $25,000/$50,000 liability limit remained in effect at the time of Mr. Cooley’s accident. However, an insured’s request for a change in policy terms may be processed retroactively, and if an accident occurs after the effective date but prior to the processing date, the policy applies as changed. See McCall v., Garland, 371 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In the present case the June 8 letter had the effect of requesting less coverage on the new auto, and negated the “automatic insurance” clause. Such a policy change may apply retroactively, as of the date of the request, even though it is processed at a later date; the trial judge erred in ruling to the contrary.
Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
McCORD and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.