Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 324.091 (2025)
Notice to department; notice to insurer.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
324.091 Notice to department; notice to insurer.—
(1) Each owner and operator involved in a crash or conviction case within the purview of this chapter shall furnish evidence of automobile liability insurance or motor vehicle liability insurance within 14 days after the date of the mailing of notice of crash by the department in the form and manner as it may designate. Upon receipt of evidence that an automobile liability policy or motor vehicle liability policy was in effect at the time of the crash or conviction case, the department shall forward to the insurer such information for verification in a method as determined by the department. The insurer shall respond to the department within 20 days after the notice whether or not such information is valid. If the department determines that an automobile liability policy or motor vehicle liability policy was not in effect and did not provide coverage for both the owner and the operator, it shall take action as it is authorized to do under this chapter.
(2) Each insurer doing business in this state shall immediately give notice to the department of each motor vehicle liability policy when issued to effect the return of a license which has been suspended under s. 324.051(2); and said notice shall be upon such form and in such manner as the department may designate.
History.—s. 1, ch. 29963, 1955; s. 3, ch. 65-122; ss. 13, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 306, ch. 99-248; s. 66, ch. 2012-181; s. 68, ch. 2013-160.
Note.—Former s. 324.08.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1970–1992 · leading case: Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. West, 276 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1973).
Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. West, 276 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1973). “Fla. Stat. § 324.091 , F.S.A., a part of our Financial Responsibility Law, provides that when such a form is received by the Insurance Department a copy of it shall be mailed to the alleged insurer and that the Department "shall assume" that coverage is in effect unless the…”
Kraemer v. GMAC, 613 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). “ees argue that the alleged agreement for the requisite insurance coverage should establish compliance with the statute notwithstanding the uncontroverted facts that the lessee paid the premium for a Nationwide policy which had been issued to the lessee with a check which was…”
Phoenix Ins. v. McQueen ex rel. McQueen, 240 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). “, had certified that it owned and held an automobile liability insurance policy issued by appellant which covered its vehicle and was in force and effect at the time of the collision out, of which plaintiffs’ cause of action arose and, if so, whether appellant insurance company…”
— 324.091(1) — 1 case
Phoenix Ins. v. McQueen ex rel. McQueen, 240 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). “, had certified that it owned and held an automobile liability insurance policy issued by appellant which covered its vehicle and was in force and effect at the time of the collision out, of which plaintiffs’ cause of action arose and, if so, whether appellant insurance company…”
— 324.091(9)(b) — 1 case
Kraemer v. GMAC, 613 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). “ees argue that the alleged agreement for the requisite insurance coverage should establish compliance with the statute notwithstanding the uncontroverted facts that the lessee paid the premium for a Nationwide policy which had been issued to the lessee with a check which was…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.