CopyCited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...ate resolution by the supreme court. I do not doubt that these cases are of great public importance, but I suggest they lack the type of immediacy which this provision demands. On March 19, 1981, a trial judge in the Second Judicial Circuit declared section 627.066, Florida Statutes (1980) to be "unconstitutional in its retroactive application to excessive profits realized during the years 1977, 1978 and 1979." The Insurance Commissioner of Florida, charged with determining the companies' excess...
...ds. Before today we made a good start toward those objectives. I see today's decision as a retreat from those principles. SUNDBERG, C.J., and ALDERMAN, J., concur. OVERTON, Justice. This cause is a direct appeal from a circuit court judgment holding section 627.066, Florida Statutes (1979), as amended by chapter 80-236, Laws of Florida, to be unconstitutional as retroactively applied....
...eat public importance which requires immediate resolution by this Court. We accept jurisdiction and reverse. An understanding of the brief history of the contested statute is necessary to perceive the exact posture of the parties in this proceeding. Section 627.066 was created by chapter 77-468, Laws of Florida, which was a far-reaching "act relating to insurance and tort reform." This act was clearly intended to reduce escalating motor vehicle insurance rates, through such means as penalizing s...
...Prior to the effective date of this act, there was no statutory provision expressly dealing with excess profits of a motor vehicle insurer, although there was and continues to be a section dealing with excessive rates. [1] Section 23 of chapter 77-468 created the excess profits law, section 627.066, the relevant portions of which provided: 627.066 Excessive profits for motor vehicle insurance prohibited....
...s will be compared to the anticipated underwriting profit. (6) If the insurer group has realized an excessive profit, the department may order a return of the excessive amounts to policyholders. Section 26 of chapter 80-236, Laws of Florida, amended section 627.066 in several places, but most of the changes were either of a technical nature or dealt with aspects of the law not involved in the instant dispute such as the procedure for refunding excess profits....
...In the event that such retroactive application is judicially determined to be unconstitutional, it is the intent of the Legislature that the act be given prospective application as stated hereinafter. The department gave notice to appellees in late August of 1980 that "pursuant to *741 Section 627.066, 1979 Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 80-236, Laws of Florida," the department had preliminarily found that appellees had realized excess profits "for the statutory review period ending with calender/accident year 1979." Appel...
...artment. Appellees asserted the unconstitutionality of "the retroactive application" of the excess profits law, as amended in 1980, and the unconstitutionality of the 1980 law per se. The trial court issued a final judgment on the pleadings, finding section 627.066, as amended by chapter 80-236, unconstitutional in its retroactive application to the years 1977, 1978, and 1979 on two grounds: impairment of vested property rights acquired prior to enactment of the 1980 law and impairment of contracts entered into or renewed prior to enactment....
...After careful consideration of both provisions, we conclude that it is the 1977 excess profits law, and not the 1980 amendments, that provides the basis for the department's authority to order a return of excess profits. It is clear from even a cursory reading that the 1980 amendments to section 627.066 are not relevant to the department's authority....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...e of great public importance and to require immediate resolution by this Court. Having exercised our discretion to review the judgment, we have plenary jurisdiction of the appeal. Art. V, § 3(b)(5), Fla. Const. The judgment before us on appeal held section 627.066, Florida Statutes (1981), commonly referred to as the automobile insurance excess profits law, constitutional....
...(c) The loss development patterns of the insurer group. (8) The department may excuse an insurer from complying with these reporting requirements if the volume of business written by the insurer would not justify the expense of the reporting requirement. § 627.066(6)-(8), Fla. Stat. (1977). After receiving an order to refund their excess profits, Government Employees Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company filed suits in two circuit courts, seeking to have section 627.066 declared unconstitutional....
...nsurance unbridled discretion to order refunds of excess profits and therefore constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. The trial judges in both cases agreed and granted the insurers' motions for summary judgment, holding section 627.066 to be unconstitutional....
...The department appealed and at the same time sought from the legislature an amendment to the statute to abolish the defects found by the circuit court judges. The legislature obliged by enacting Chapter 80-236, Laws of Florida. Section 26 of that chapter amended and renumbered subsections six through eight of section 627.066 to provide as follows: (7) If the insurer group has realized an excessive profit, the department shall order a return of the excessive amounts after affording the insurer group an opportunity for hearing and otherwise complying with the requirements of chapter 120....
...(8) The excessive amount shall be refunded on a pro rata basis in relation to the final compilation year earned premiums to the voluntary private passenger automobile policyholders of record of the insurer group on December 31 of the final compilation year. § 627.066(7) and (8), Fla....
...Excessive profits shall be calculated in accordance with this section; however, refunds shall only be made for excessive profits realized in the years 1981 and 1982. Thereafter, excessive profits shall be calculated and refunded on the basis of 3 years as set forth in this section. § 627.066(13), Fla....
...ill now address the question we avoided in Teachers of whether 1980 amendment authorizing the department to order refunds of excess profits earned since 1977 is an unconstitutional impairment of contracts. See Art. I, § 10, Fla. Const. We hold that section 627.066(13), Florida Statutes (1981), does not violate this constitutional provision and that the department is therefore authorized to order refunds of excess profits earned since 1977....
...that any funds received exceeding five percent of their anticipated profit under the statute might be subject to refund orders and therefore they did not obtain a vested right to those funds. Department of Insurance v. Teachers Insurance Co . Since section 627.066(13) allows insurers to keep their anticipated profits plus five percent, and since the insurers knew when they entered into these contracts that excess profits might have to be refunded, the statute does not operate as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship. Furthermore, what minimal impairment does exist is outweighed by the state's interest in eliminating unforeseen windfall profits. Section 627.066(13) specifically states that excess profits were realized in the years of 1977-1979 due to statutory changes....
...nses and authorized the Department of Insurance to calculate and order refunds of any excess profits. We do not find this method of protecting policyholders from paying exorbitantly high premiums to be unreasonable. Some of the appellants argue that section 627.066 violates equal protection by discriminating against small insurance companies and insurance companies with declining premiums....
...Since the statute places all insurers in the same category, evidence pertaining to the disproportionate impact the statute may have on particular subgroups of insurers does not present a substantial question of whether the statute violates equal protection. Next appellants argue that section 627.066 is not reasonably related to the legislative goal of protecting policyholders from exorbitantly high rates....
...Because these concepts can be specifically defined and consistently applied, they are not unconstitutionally vague or ambiguous. See Florida Welding & Erection Service, Inc. v. American Mutual Insurance Co.,
285 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1973). The next point on appeal is that section
627.066 is unconstitutional because it contains an irrebuttable presumption that insurers who earn excess profits are charging exorbitantly high premiums....
...is some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.,
428 U.S. 1,
96 S.Ct. 2882,
49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). Since we have already found that there is a reasonable basis for believing that section
627.066 serves the purpose of protecting policyholders from exorbitantly high rates, it follows that this section does not contain an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption....
...Thus the law does not embrace more than one subject. Moreover the effect of sections 26 and 27 is briefly expressed in the title of chapter 80-236. We see no infirmity under article III, section 6. See The Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran,
224 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1969). We find section
627.066, Florida Statutes (1981), to be consistent with constitutional requirements....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 239, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14102
...ned by the Department through administrative rule, grants the Department unbridled discretion to manipulate the amount of anticipated underwriting profit and ultimately the amount of excessive profit. The Motor Vehicle Excessive Profits Law (MVEPL), Section
627.066, Florida Statutes (1983), contains language identical to Section
627.215(2)(a). In U.S.F. & G., the court examined the term “due recognition to investment income”, as used in the MVEPL, section
627.066(3)(b), stating: Some of the appellants also argue that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous....
...ublic against the adverse effects of excessive ... insurance rates”. Section
627.031(2), Florida Statutes. A similar argument was raised against the MVEPL in U.S.F. & G. The supreme court rejected the argument, stating: [Ajppellants argue that section
627.066 is not reasonably related to the legislative goal of protecting policyholders from exorbitantly high rates....
