Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...ed Insureds were covered by a different insurance policy than the one at issue. ( Id. at 5). The Cooper and Wheatley Defendants' argument is based on a Florida law that requires an insurer to give 45 days prior notice of changes in a renewal policy. § 627.4133, Fla....

...(Doc. 49 at 5). Neither of the Named Insureds raises this argument or otherwise seeks to postpone a ruling on the instant motions, and the Cooper and Wheatley Defendants do not cite any authority for the proposition that the protections afforded by section 627.4133 may be asserted by persons other than Named Insureds. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Valdivia, 771 So.2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (noting that the purpose of section 627.4133 is to "`enable an insured to obtain coverage elsewhere before the insured is subjected to risk without protection'" (quoting U.S....

...ous provision coupled with the insured's failure to act upon the notice binds the insured to the terms set forth in the notice). Accordingly, the Cooper and Wheatley Defendants' outstanding requests for discovery regarding Westport's compliance with section 627.4133 do not justify postponing ruling on the instant Motions....

...Second, this count alleged that pursuant to the locum tenens policies executed by Drs. Kim and Esfahani naming Dr. McKinney as an additional insured on policy # # 6646 and 27035, respectively, Dr. McKinney was entitled to receive notice of non-renewal or cancellation of the policy under section 627.4133, Florida Statutes (2000)....

...McKinney was not entitled to any relief under the two locum tenens acknowledgments because Drs. Kim and Esfahani had cancelled their policies with FPIC, without purchasing tail coverage, long before Mrs. Carawon's September 2003 notice of intent was presented; and that the breach of contract claim should be dismissed because section 627.4133(1), Florida Statutes (2000), which requires notice to be given by the "insurer" to "the named insured," does not apply to additional insureds such as Dr....

...After settling with its employee, Southern filed suit against Hartford to recoup its defense costs, alleging that the Hartford policy covered personal injury in 1990 and 1991 because Hartford had not notified Southern of the 1987 coverage exclusion as required by subsection 627.4133(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides in part: (a) An insurer issuing a policy providing coverage for workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance, property, casualty, except mortgage guaranty, surety, or marine insurance ......

...written notice required under this section, the coverage provided to the named insured shall remain in effect until 45 days after the notice is given or until the effective date of replacement coverage obtained by the named insured, whichever occurs first. Hartford contends that section 627.4133 only requires notice to the insured when an entire policy is not renewed and not where, as here, only a portion of numerous coverages is deleted....

...e requirement is to enable an insured to obtain coverage elsewhere before the insured is subjected to risk without protection. The 1987 Hartford policy, which deleted this coverage, was a non-renewal of the 1986 Hartford policy within the meaning of § 627.4133....

...In the Court's opinion, notice is required when, as here, coverage such as the libel and slander coverage provided by the 1986 Hartford Policy is eliminated by the insurer in the reissued policy. We agree with the trial court that the 1987 policy was a "nonrenewal" of the 1986 policy which triggered the notice requirement of section 627.4133....

...This is an appeal from a final summary judgment which determines that a policy of insurance issued by the appellant, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, was in effect when appellee, Erik Valdivia, sustained his injuries. Although St. Paul failed to send the required statutory notice of nonrenewal pursuant to section 627.4133(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), the company's compliance was excused because the insured obtained replacement coverage with another carrier....

...Valdivia was injured in a motor cross bicycle accident that occurred less than twenty-four hours after the St. Paul policy at issue in this case expired. He nevertheless sued St. Paul, alleging that the insurance policy was still in effect at the time of the crash because St. Paul had failed to comply with section 627.4133(1)(a), which section requires an insurer to give the named insured at least forty-five days' advance written notice of nonrenewal....

...Paul had insured Knight Bike Shop against liability arising out of the sale or assembly of bicycles. Valdivia filed this action against St. Paul pursuant to an assignment from Knight Bike Shop after he had unsuccessfully sued the bike shop for the allegedly negligent assembly of Valdivia's bike. [1] The purpose of section 627.4133(1)(a) is to "enable an insured to obtain coverage elsewhere before the insured is subjected to risk without protection." United States Fire Ins....

...Paul did not provide Knight Bike Shop the required forty-five days statutory notice of the nonrenewal of its policy. However, prior to the expiration of the St. Paul policy, the bike shop obtained coverage with Sphere Drake Insurance Company. The insured shop was thus protected by a replacement policy. Section 627.4133(1)(c) provides that, if an insurer fails to provide the required notice, the coverage remains in effect until forty-five days after the notice is given "or until the effective date of replacement coverage obtained by the named insured, whichever occurs first." (emphasis added)....

...a single Florida county. See Fla. Stat. § 627.7013. This phaseout plan was interpreted by Department of Insurance (DOI) rules—despite a Florida statute permitting the total withdrawal of insurance companies upon 45- days notice, see Fla. Stat. § 627.4133(2)—as generally prohibiting an insurer's total withdrawal from doing business in the State of Florida.3 In addition, legislation was passed requiring insurers to pay annual premiums to the Florida 2 When the summary...

...Therefore, Verex argues that if mortgage guaranty insurance was governed exclusively by the provisions of Chapter 635 and other specifically incorporated code provisions, the 1985 amendment to § 627.4145 was pointless. Similarly, Verex calls the Court’s attention to § 627.4133, governing notice of cancellation, nonrenewal, or renewal premiums. On October 1, 1990, the Florida legislature amended § 627.4133 to exempt mortgage guaranty insurance from its coverage. Ve-rex asserts that FDIC’s position means that § 627.4133 has not applied to mortgage guaranty insurance at least since 1983 when § 635.091 was adopted because § 635.091 does not list § 627.4133. Nevertheless, because the legislature amended § 627.4133 in *399 1990 specifically to exempt mortgage guaranty insurance, Verex insists that this statute must have applied to mortgage guaranty insurance prior to that time. Verex maintains that the amendments to sections 627.4145 and 627.4133 indicate that FDIC’s interpretation of the purpose and effect of § 635.091 is untenable....

...They were told that they had no homeowner's policy in force and effect with Fortune on August 24, 1992, and that their policy had been cancelled in 1991. The Ruizes thereafter filed suit against Fortune, and the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Fortune. This appeal followed. Initially, we note that section 627.4133, Florida Statutes (1991) prescribes the precise manner in which an insurer must provide a notice of cancellation or nonrenewal to its insured....

...4th DCA 1989); Burgos v. Independent Fire Ins. Co., 371 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We find that Fortune's notice of cancellation of the Ruizes' homeowner's insurance as well as its cancellation of its agency relationship with Biscayne satisfied the requirement of section 627.4133....

...This phaseout plan was interpreted by Department of Insurance (DOI) rules -- despite a Florida statute permitting the total withdrawal of insurance companies upon 45- days notice, see Fla. Stat. § 627.4133(2) -- as generally prohibiting an insurer’s total withdrawal 7 from doing business in the State of 3 Florida. In addition, legislation was pas...

...r insurer before it is subjected to risk without protection as a result of the nonrenewal of its insurance. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Valdivia, 771 So.2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (explaining that the purpose of the nearly-identical section 627.4133(1)(a) is to "enable an insured to obtain coverage elsewhere before the insured is subjected to risk without protection") (quoting United States Fire Ins....

....F. Construction, Inc. (the “subcontractor”), written notice of the insurer’s nonrenewal of its 2004-05 policy which provided coverage for the subcontractor’s additional insured, appellee Double A Industries, Inc. (the “contractor”). See § 627.4133(l)(a), Fla....

...Because the insurer failed to give such written notice to the subcontractor, and because the subcontractor did not obtain replacement coverage before the underlying incident, the terms of the 2004-05 policy remained in effect at the time of the underlying incident. See § 627.4133(l)(c), Fla....

...Therefore, Verex argues that if mortgage guaranty insurance was governed exclusively by the provisions of Chapter 635 and other specifically incorporated code provisions, the 1985 amendment to § 627.4145 was pointless. Similarly, Verex calls the Court's attention to § 627.4133, governing notice of cancellation, nonrenewal, or renewal premiums. On October 1, 1990, the Florida legislature amended § 627.4133 to exempt mortgage guaranty insurance from its coverage. Verex asserts that FDIC's position means that § 627.4133 has not applied to mortgage guaranty insurance at least since 1983 when § 635.091 was adopted because § 635.091 does not list § 627.4133. Nev *432 ertheless, because the legislature amended § 627.4133 in 1990 specifically to exempt mortgage guaranty insurance, Verex insists that this statute must have applied to mortgage guaranty insurance prior to that time. Verex maintains that the amendments to sections 627.4145 and 627.4133 indicate that FDIC's interpretation of the purpose and effect of § 635.091 is untenable....

...d, at the address shown in the policy, and to the named insured's insurance agent at her or his business address, at least 45 days’ advance notice of its intention not to renew; and the reasons for refusal to renew must accompany such notice.”); § 627.4133(1)(a), Fla....

...no dispute that such an exclusion squarely forecloses coverage in this case based on the facts as alleged in the Underlying Case’s third amended complaint. Accordingly, Cincinnati has no duty to defend Franck’s or Campbell. 21 C. Florida Statute § 627.4133 Franck’s and Campbell lastly seek to avoid application of the novation doctrine by arguing that Cincinnati failed to comply with Florida’s non-renewal statute, Fla. Stat. § 627.4133 ....

...policy is not to be renewed. This requirement applies only if the insured has furnished all of the necessary information so as to enable the insurer to develop the renewal premium prior to the expiration date of the policy to be renewed. Fla. Stat. § 627.4133 ....

...While this provision by its terms only appears to apply to the nonrenewal of insurance policies, Franck’s and Campbell have cited to one Florida decision, United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Southern Sec. Life Ins. Co., 710 So.2d 130 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1998), which applied Fla. Stat. § 627.4133 to an insurance carrier’s renewal of a policy that deleted or removed coverage previously afforded....

...to provide such notice, “the coverage' provided to the named insured shall remain in effect until 45 days after notice is given or until the effective date of replacement coverage obtained by the named insured whichever occurs first.” Fla. Stat. § 627.4133 (l)(c)....

...acted outside the scope of its authority in issuing the homeowner’s policy. In support of that motion, American filed the affidavit of its regional manager, Kenneth Beyer. He stated that the Tenches’ policy had been cancelled in compliance with section 627.4133, Florida Statutes (1993) before the hurricane, that American would not have insured the duplex had it known it was uninhabited, and that Asher exceeded its authority in issuing the policy. The trial judge held two hearings and thereafter issued summary judgment in the insurer’s favor. We reverse. Section 627.4133 provides: (2)(b) When such cancellation or termination occurs during the first 90 days during which the insurance is in force and the insurance is cancelled or terminated for reasons other than nonpayment of premium, at least 20 days...

...Bella Marine and appellant agreed to a consent judgment under which appellant was assigned Bella Marine’s rights to proceed against appellee. In the motion for summary judgment that is the subject of this appeal, appellee asserted that it properly cancelled the contract under sections 440.42 and 627.4133(l)(b), Florida Statutes. The trial court held as a matter of law that section 627.4133(1)(b) does not apply to workers’ compensation, and that appellee did not validly cancel the contract....

...The Florida Supreme Court held that it would not impose an extension of reporting time because the parties did not agree to such an extension. Id. As described above, the policies at issue did include a specifically defined extended reporting period. D. Extended Reporting Period and § 627.4133 Notice of Nonrenewal Under Fla. Stat. § 627.4133 , an insurer is required to give its insured at least 45 days advance written notice of nonrenewal....

...If an insurer fails to give 45 days notice of nonrenewal, then “the coverage provided to the named insured shall remain in effect until 45 days after the notice is given or *1289 until the effective date of replacement coverage obtained by the named insured, whichever occurs first.” Fla. Stat. § 627.4133 (l)(c)....

...Garcia argues that this limitation is not part of the subparagraph (a) Automatic Extended Reporting Period; that the placement of this limitation makes its application to the Automatic Extended Period ambiguous; or, that this limitation is contrary to Fla. Stat. § 627.4133 and cannot apply in this action....

...If the term “either” were not modifying “Extended Reporting Period,” then the Court would agree with Garcia that the provision is ambiguous, and therefore construed against the insurers. 6 However, that is not the case in this policy. Garcia also argues that § 627.4133 requires that James River’s actions in this case be deemed a “nonrenewal,” and therefore the limitation on the contractual provision for automatic extension cannot apply....

...Garcia Motion at 2 [DE 26]. In North Pointe Casualty Ins. Co. v. Arden Ins. Assoc., Inc., 75 So.3d 798 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2011), the court held that because the insurer failed to give written notice to its insured regarding nonrenewal of its prior year policy, § 627.4133(1)(c) would apply to continue coverage on the same terms and conditions as the original policy. However, in this action a proper § 627.4133(1)(a) notice was issued. Therefore, § 627.4133(1)(c) does not apply....

...ere there has never been a prior dispute that the 200 East project was a condominium project as defined in the Residential Condominium/Townhome Exclusion. . James River points out in its response that as a surplus lines insurer, it is not covered by § 627.4133, but is covered by § 626.9201, a substantially similar statute. Upon a review of these two statutory provisions, any case law interpreting § 627.4133 would also apply to § 626.9201....