REZSO NATHAN, ET UX, APPELLANTS,
v.
CECIL A. WILHOLT, ET AL., 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.
The court reversed a judgment for Safeco Insurance, holding that the insured made no informed rejection of uninsured motorist coverage because there was no competent evidence that the insured was advised that UM coverage was available at limits equal to their bodily injury liability coverage.
An insured cannot be deemed to have made an informed rejection of uninsured motorist coverage without competent evidence that the insured was advised of the availability of UM coverage at limits equal to their bodily injury liability coverage.
[1] An insured's rejection of uninsured motorist coverage is not informed unless there is competent evidence that the insured was advised of the availability of UM coverage a…
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 intelligenceThe Nathans purchased an insurance policy from Safeco with $500,000/$1,000,000 bodily injury liability coverage but had uninsured motorist coverage li…
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 Bodily Injury Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
This is the appeal from a final judgment in favor of the defendant, Safeco Insurance Company of America (“Safeco”) on appellants’ claim for uninsured motorist coverage (“UM”). The primary issue is whether appellants made an informed rejection of uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to their $500,000/1,000,000 bodily injury liability coverage. § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (1981). The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of Safeco — probably because the jury did not believe that the insurance agent falsely informed Mrs. Nathan they could not purchase UM limits greater than $10,000/20,000. We must nevertheless reverse because, after thorough review of the record, we conclude there was no competent substantial evidence adduced at trial from which the jury could have properly concluded that the insured had been advised by Safeco’s agent, or otherwise knew, that UM coverage was available at limits equal to the limits of their bodily injury liability coverage. See Kimball v. Great American Ins. Co., 420 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1982). Appellants’ motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence should have been granted.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to enter judgment for appellant.
HARRIS, J. and UNGARO, U., Associate Judge, concur.