Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“it is well settled in florida that the statute in effect at the time the insurance contract is executed governs any issues arising under that contract.”
20 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: V. Anne Richardson Jones, of the Estate of Hassel L. Richardson, Durham Life Insurance Company (ca4, 1992-07-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) V. Anne Richardson Jones, of the Estate of Hassel L. Richardson, Durham Life Insurance Company
4th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
it is well settled in florida that the statute in effect at the time the insurance contract is executed governs any issues arising under that contract.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leandro de la Fuente v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association
Fla. · 2016 · confidence medium
Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (explaining that the application of a statute to insurance contracts entered into prior to the date the statute took effect “would constitute a legislative impairment of contract in violation of article I, section 10 of the Florida Constitution”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas C. Shelton v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) (“It is well settled in Florida that the statute in effect at the time the insurance contract is executed governs any issues arising under that contract.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Bernard
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (explaining that the application of a statute to insurance contracts entered into prior to the date the statute took effect “would constitute a legislative impairment of contract in violation of article I, section 10 of the Florida Constitution”).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Bay Farms Corp. v. Great American Alliance Insurance (3×) also: Cited "see"
M.D. Fla. · 2011 · confidence medium
Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) GEICO Indemnity Co. v. Physicians Group, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)); see Esancy v. Hodges, 727 So.2d 308, 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co.
Fla. · 2010 · confidence medium
Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (holding that a liability policy is governed by the law in effect at the time the policy is issued, not the law in effect at the time a claim arises); Hausler v. State Farm Mut.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vision I Homeowners Ass'n v. Aspen Specialty Insurance
S.D. Fla. · 2009 · confidence medium
Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hassen
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Casualty Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
cited Cited "see" Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Fla. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and cases cited therein.
cited Cited "see" Young v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
Randolph v. State, 292 So.2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 300 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1974); see Lee v. State, 440 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
cited Cited "see" Tuthill v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
Randolph v. State, 292 So.2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 300 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1974); see Lee v. State, 440 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
Ricardo CEBALLOS, Appellee.
83-1717.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov 8, 1983.
440 So. 2d 612
Hubbart, Nesbitt and Daniel S. Pearson.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

[*613] Kimbrell, Hamann, Jennings, Womack, Carlson & Kniskern and John W. Wylie and Roy Wasson, Miami, for appellant.

Richard & Pemsler and Barry Pemsler, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

NESBITT, Judge.

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company appeals the entry of an adverse partial summary judgment determining the issue of its liability to the insured, Ceballos, as well as the denial of its countermotion for summary judgment. The question presented for review is whether a liability insurance policy is governed by the law in effect at the time the policy is issued or by the law at the time a claim arises. The law in effect at the time the insurance contract was executed controls. We reverse.

Under section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1975) [in effect when the policy was issued], an insured could purchase deductible PIP benefits at his option. No duty to inquire into the existence of collateral insurance was imposed on the insurance company. This statute was amended, effective September 1, 1977. As amended, an insurance company which failed to advise a purchaser of deductible PIP benefits of the need for collateral insurance would be liable as if there were no deductible. Kwechin v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 409 So.2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Ceballos purchased personal injury protection insurance with a $2,000 deductible from Lumbermens before the amendment to section 627.739, Florida Statutes took effect. It is undisputed that the insurance company made no inquiry about additional insurance, and that Ceballos had no collateral coverage. Ceballos was injured after the effective date of the amendment.

An insurance policy is a contract. § 624.02, Fla. Stat. (1981). It is well settled in Florida that the statute in effect at the time the insurance contract is executed governs any issues arising under that contract. See Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Fugate, 313 F.2d 788 (5th Cir.1963); Allison v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co., 222 So.2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Poole v. Travelers Ins. Co., 130 Fla. 806, 179 So. 138 (1937). Applying section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977) to contracts entered into before the statute was effective would constitute a legislative impairment of contract in violation of article I, section 10 of the Florida Constitution.

Ceballos urges us to expand the limited exception for worker's compensation insurance, under which insurance carriers providing such coverage are liable as statutorily prescribed at the date of the event giving rise to the claim. See, e.g., Simmons v. City of Coral Gables, 186 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1966). We reject this argument. Insurance companies providing worker's compensation insurance know that employers have a special duty to their employees and that worker's compensation benefits are therefore determined by the law in effect at the date of the event creating a claim. There was no comparable special duty on an insurance carrier providing PIP insurance prior to the effective date of the amended section 627.739, Florida Statutes.

Reversed with directions to enter judgment in favor of Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company.