T. SOL JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY AND STEVEN TRACY WILLIAMS, APPELLEES
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.
Johnson's 1980 Camaro was not covered under his commercial automobile insurance policy because he failed to notify Travelers of the vehicle's acquisition within the required thirty-day period, and the vehicle was not listed on the policy's declaration sheet.
An insured's failure to notify the insurer of a newly acquired vehicle within the contractually prescribed thirty-day notice period results in no coverage for that vehicle under the commercial policy, regardless of prior family policy coverage.
[1] An insured's failure to notify an insurer of a newly acquired vehicle within a clear and unambiguous contractual notice period results in no coverage for that vehicle, ev…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson obtained a commercial automobile insurance policy from Travelers for his law firm and later acquired a 1980 Camaro, which he did not list on t…
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 Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Johnson appeals a final summary judgment finding no coverage by Travelers for a 1980 Camaro automobile under a commercial automobile insurance policy issued to Johnson’s law firm. We affirm.
Johnson argues that there was an oral contract which extended the same coverage under the commercial policy as he previously had under a family policy issued by Travelers and also argues that the Camaro was covered even though it was not listed on the policy’s declaration sheet.
In its summary judgment, the trial court specifically stated that even assuming Johnson had the family policy coverage, he had failed to notify Travelers within the prescribed thirty days that he had acquired the car. The thirty-day notice requirement was not tied to premium notices as it was in Beasley v. Wolf, 151 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), where the link created an ambiguity precluding summary judgment. Here, the language of the thirty-day notice requirement is clear and unambiguous. The commercial policy did not list the Camaro as an insured vehicle, nor did Johnson notify Travelers of the acquisition of the car within thirty days of his acquiring it. Therefore, the Camaro was not covered by the commercial policy, even assuming the same family policy coverage had been extended. Lowe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 420 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
The final summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
LARRY G. SMITH, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rabatie v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 581 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ee also Beasley v. Wolf, 151 So. 2d at 681 (analogous policy provision provided immediate coverage; under the particular policy, coverage existed even though no notification until after expiration of 30 days); cf. Johnson v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 438 So. 2d 1045, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (distinguishing Beasley [*1331] policy language; requiring notification within 30 days). The cases relied on by the insurer are inapposite. In the cases relied on by U.S. Security there was simply no notification at all wi…1 / 3
-
Reliance Ins. Co. v. D'Amico, 528 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…n calculated based on the value of the motor specified in the policy. The trial court entered an amended final judgment for D’Amico in the amount of $6,801.06 plus interest. In this appeal Reliance argues, citing Johnson v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 438 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and Lowe v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 420 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), that the policy of insurance issued to D’Amico does not cover the replacement motor because D’Amico did not comply with the policy’s notice require…
-
Gen. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Barrentine, 829 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…comply with an applicable condition precedent to a valid claim for insurance coverage for the collision. His failure to comply with the requirements of the policy is fatal to his claim that the truck was insured. See Johnson v. Travelers Indem. Co., 438 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Reliance Ins. Co. v. D'Amico, 528 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Because an essential condition of the policy was not met, we must hold that coverage did not exist. The trial court relied on several cases in which the appellate…
Authorities Cited
- Beasley v. Wolf, 151 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Lowe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 420 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)