Section 627.727, Florida statutes delineates the requirements for (UM) uninsured motorist coverage – specifically how an insurer must document the rejection of coverage. The insured can select UM coverage lower than the bodily injury liability limits of the policy or reject coverage entirely, but she or he must do so through writing. In a recent Florida car accident case, No. 4D17-332, the court looked at whether an insurance company failed to follow the UM statutory guidelines. The insured purchased uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for two vehicles. He filled out an online form, which did not allow him to sign anything, nor did it provide the ability to reject or deselect non-stacked coverage. The signing page also did not have warning language, as required by law. The appellate court determined the insurer failed to comply with the written notice provisions, and as a result, the insured did not knowingly reject stacked coverage or accept non-stacked UM coverage.
The trial court judge found the documentation used by the insurance company did not comply with the specificities of Florida statute 627.727. The written notice with warning language was to be in a 12-point font and signed by the insured. The warning page did not have a signature line for the insured and was not signed by the insured. A different page had a signature but only incorporated the required warnings by reference. The judge also noted the online form did not allow a user to un-select the automated waiver of stacked coverage. The judge granted the insured’s motion for summary judgment, and the insurer appealed. The insurer did not argue against any of the judge’s findings on appeal, instead claiming the policy-holder orally rejected the stacked UM coverage. The case went on to be tried on the oral rejection issue alone, with a jury verdict in favor of the insurance company.
Section 627.727, Florida statutes is filled with very specific requirements preceded by the word “shall,” strictly limiting the interpretation to what is within the body of the statute. The appellate court noted this was all written with the intent to promote UM coverage and avoid costs borne by the taxpayer after car accidents. The court stated the legislature understood the short attention span of the average consumer and the need for essential information to be relayed efficiently and prominently, thus coming up with the specific requirements. Various appellate courts and the state’s supreme court reviewed these statutory mandates and found them to be acceptable. The legislative history shows this to be a compromise between keeping drivers adequately covered in the event of a UM accident and the insurance companies’ competition.