Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a dispute between an insured individual and their insurance company regarding an uninsured motorist claim. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, due to the insured's failure to provide written notice of settlement with the tortfeasor, as mandated by Florida Statutes Section 627.727(6). However, the insured's attorney submitted an affidavit suggesting that misleading information provided by the insurer may excuse this non-compliance. The affidavit alleged that the insurer initially confirmed the absence of uninsured motorist coverage before the settlement, thereby potentially misleading the insured. Additionally, the endorsement of the settlement check by an agent of the insurer raised questions about whether consent to the settlement had been implicitly given, potentially negating claims of prejudice. The court held that the statutory notice requirement creates only a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, and factual issues remained regarding the insured's duty to investigate the endorsement. Consequently, the summary judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Judges Patterson and Quince concurred in the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consent to Settlement through Endorsementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether the insurer's agent's endorsement on the settlement check constituted consent to the settlement, which could affect claims of prejudice.
Reasoning: The settlement check from the tortfeasor's insurer, endorsed by an agent of State Farm, raised questions about whether State Farm had consented to the settlement, which could negate claims of prejudice.
Factual Determination Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case was remanded due to unresolved factual issues regarding the insured's duty to investigate and the implications of the check endorsement.
Reasoning: The court concluded that whether Moskowitz had a duty to further investigate the endorsement's implications is a matter for factual determination.
Misleading Information by Insurersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated the impact of potentially misleading information from the insurer on the insured's compliance with statutory requirements.
Reasoning: State Farm's later erroneous written confirmation that there was no uninsured motorist coverage could imply that Moskowitz received misleading information during his inquiry.
Notice Requirement under Florida Statutes Section 627.727(6)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed the necessity of providing written notice to an insurer prior to settlement with a tortfeasor as a precondition to pursuing an uninsured motorist claim.
Reasoning: The trial court granted summary judgment against Moskowitz due to his failure to provide written notice of settlement to his insurer before settling with the tortfeasor, as required by section 627.727(6) of the Florida Statutes.
Rebuttable Presumption of Prejudicesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered whether the insurer was prejudiced by the insured's failure to comply with statutory notice requirements, allowing for the possibility of rebuttal by demonstrating no prejudice occurred.
Reasoning: The court noted that the written notice requirement creates only a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the insurer.