IRENE CONEY ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1978-05-09
No. 76-1904
Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.
358 So. 2d 261 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1978) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment for uninsured motorist coverage under automobile insurance policies after being injured by an underinsured motorist. The court affirmed the insurers' judgment on the pleadings, holding that the statute expanding uninsured motorist coverage to include underinsured motorists applies only to policies issued on or after October 1, 1973, and does not apply retroactively to policies issued in January 1973.


Holding

The statute applies only prospectively to policies delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed with an inception date on or after October 1, 1973, and does not apply retroactively to policies issued in January 1973, even though the accident occurred after the statute's effective date.


Headnotes

[1] A statute's applicability is determined by its effective date and the dates policies were delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed.

[2] Insurance policies issued before the effective date of a statute are not subject to that statute, even if the insured event occurs after the effective date.

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

Key Quotes

“Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes, which is the subject of this controversy, became, effective October 1, 1973, and the legislature clearly provided that this section is applicable only to "policies delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed in this state with an inception date on or after October 1, 1973."”

Establishes the explicit statutory language limiting prospective application of the underinsured motorist coverage requirement.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

On December 9, 1973, plaintiffs Irene Coney and passengers were injured when struck by a car negligently operated by George Burks, whose liability pol…

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.


Opinion of the Court
HAVERFIELD, Chief Judge.

HAVERFIELD, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal an order granting the motions of defendant insurers for judgment on the pleadings in this declaratory judgment action seeking to determine coverage under the provisions of plaintiff’s automobile insurance policies.

On December 9, 1973, plaintiffs (Irene Coney and her passengers) sustained serious injuries when the car in which they were riding was struck by an automobile owned and negligently operated by George Burks. Burks was covered by an insurance policy with liability limits of $10,000/$20,000. Irene Coney was insured under a policy which was issued by Reserve Insurance Company effective January 17, 1973, and provided for uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $10,000/$20,000. In addition, the car operated by Coney1 was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. This policy was issued on January 5, 1973 and contained uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $10,000/$20,-000. The limits of liability under Burk’s policy being inadequate, plaintiffs made demand upon Reserve and State Farm under the uninsured motorist provisions of their policies pursuant to Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1973),2 which includes in the definition of uninsured, a motorist who is underinsured. State Farm and Reserve denied coverage and plaintiffs filed the instant declaratory judgment action. Both insurers filed answers denying liability on the ground that Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1973), became effective on October 1, 1973, and, therefore, were not applicable to their policies which were issued prior thereto in January, 1973. Upon the insurers’ motion, the trial court entered a judgment on the pleadings in their favor for the above stated reason. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes, which is the subject of this controversy, became, effective October 1, 1973, and the legislature clearly provided that this section is applicable only to “policies delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed in this state with an inception date on or after October 1, 1973.” See Laws of Florida, Chapter 73-180, Section 5 (1973).

Although the accident occurred after the effective date of the statute, the policies of Reserve and State Farm were issued some ten months previous to that date and we find the trial court correctly entered judgment in favor of these insurers. See Castaneda v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 348 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Marks v. Travelers Indem. Co., 339 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

. and owned by Albert Johnson

. “ *(2) For the purpose of this coverage, the term ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof:

(a) Is unable to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured within the limits specified therein because of insolvency; or (b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist’s coverage.”

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Williams v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 382 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1980)
    …he case law in this area uncovered two more recent cases in which courts held that unde-rinsured vehicle coverage was not required until chapter 73-180. York Insurance Co. v. Becker, 364 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Coney v. Reserve Insurance Co., 358 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1971), governed the policy at issue here and is the prime authority for determining whether uninsured vehicle coverage is available in this case. We find that the “excess over” provision added…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw