RIGOBERTO DORTICOS
v.
INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
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.
A single insurance policy provision must be construed in the context of the entire policy, and a named insured's signature on a form conclusively presumes informed, knowing rejection of coverage or election of lower limits.
[1] A named insured's signature on an insurance coverage election form conclusively presumes informed, knowing rejection of stacked uninsured motorist coverage or election of…
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 intelligence“[A] single policy provision should not be considered in isolation, but rather, the contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms as set forth in the policy and as amplified by the policy application, endorsements, or riders.”
Citing Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. W. Fla. Vill. Inn, Inc., establishing the principle of holistic policy interpretation
Rigoberto Dorticos appealed a circuit court decision regarding uninsured motorist coverage under an Infinity Auto Insurance policy.…
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 Stacking cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 22, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-1345
Lower Tribunal No. 20-2440-CA-01
Rigoberto Dorticos,
Appellant,
vs.
Infinity Auto Insurance Company, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.
Tyler Law Firm, and Ryan C. Tyler; Zediker Law Firm, and Garrett T. Zediker; Pita Weber Del Prado, and Randy M. Weber, for appellant. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A., and Lissette Gonzalez for appellees, Jean Paul Bernal and Jose Gerardo Moran Banegas; Carlton Fields, P.A., and Dean A. Morande (West Palm Beach), and Nicholas E. Athanas (Atlanta, GA), for appellee Infinity Auto Insurance Company. Before MILLER, LOBREE, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. W. Fla. Vill. Inn, Inc., 874 So. 2d 26, 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“[A] single policy provision should not be considered in isolation, but rather, the contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms as set forth in the policy and as amplified by the policy application, endorsements, or riders.”); Larusso v. Garner, 888 So. 2d 712, 717 & n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that an ambiguity in the upper portion of the form did not create an ambiguity as to the coverage selected in the lower portion of the form as insured "checked the box for non-stacked uninsured motorist coverage and . . . received and remitted the premium for such coverage”); § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (“If this form is signed by a named insured, it will be conclusively presumed that there was an informed, knowing rejection of coverage or election of lower limits on behalf of all insureds."); State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 330 So. 3d 67, 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (holding that "[t]he form, the renewal declaration, and the policy . . . [were] susceptible of only one reasonable interpretation: Mr. Schnitz knowingly selected non-stacking coverage”).
2