627.7282
Notice of additional premium; cancellation upon nonpayment.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
627.7282 Notice of additional premium; cancellation upon nonpayment.—
(1) Upon a determination by an insurer that, in accordance with its rate filings and the applicable laws of this state relating to private passenger motor vehicle insurance, a policyholder has been charged a premium that is incorrect for the coverage set forth in the insurance application, the insurer shall immediately provide notice to the policyholder of the amount of additional premium due to the insurer and that the policyholder has the following options:
(a) The policyholder has a period of 10 days, or a longer period if specified by the insurer, from receipt of the notice within which to pay the additional amount of premium due and thereby maintain the policy in full force under its original terms.
(b) The policyholder has a period of 10 days, or a longer period if specified by the insurer, from receipt of the notice within which to cancel the policy and demand a refund of any unearned premiums.
(c) If the policyholder fails to timely respond to the notice, the insurer shall cancel the policy and return any unearned premium to the insured. The date on which the policy will be canceled shall be stated in the notice and shall in no case be less than 14 days after the date of the notice.
(2) The amount of unearned premium due to the policyholder as a result of cancellation in accordance with subsection (1) shall be calculated on a pro rata basis.
(3) No insurer shall unilaterally alter or modify the policy period for a private passenger automobile insurance policy to provide an expiration date that is prior to the date specified in the policyholder’s application, except as provided in this section.
(4) This section shall not be construed to limit insurers’ rights to cancel in accordance with applicable provisions of the insurance code.
(5) The commission may adopt rules prescribing the format of the notice.
History.—s. 1, ch. 86-252; s. 2, ch. 87-50; s. 114, ch. 92-318; s. 12, ch. 2000-370; s. 1193, ch. 2003-261.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Smith v. New Hampshire Indemnity Co.
Smith v. New Hampshire Indemnity Co. (2011)
“§ 627.7282, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). As he did in the proceedings below, Appellant concedes that if this statute does not apply to the renewal of his policy, NHIC is entitled to summary judgment.”
Amstar Ins. Co. v. Cadet (2003)
“However section 627.7282, which deals with an incorrect premium charge, is not applicable to the instant case.”
Gonzalez v. Eagle Ins. Co. (2006)
“" A similar statute, section 627.7282(1)(c), dealing with the charging of an incorrect premium, specifies for the cancellation of the policy and the return of any unearned premium to the insured.”
US SEC. Ins. Co. v. Figueroa (2005)
“See § 627.7282(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). These three options included: (1) pay the additional premium by August 19, 2000, and maintain the policy under its original terms; (2) cancel the policy by August 19, 2000, and demand a refund of any unearned premiums; or (3) take no action…”
Sotomayor v. Seminole Casualty Insurance Co. (1995)
“” In combination, these provisions are practically identical to section 627.7282, except the contract re- *665 quired Seminole to give Sotomayor fifteen days’ notice, not ten.”
Stinson v. United Automobile Insurance (1999)
“hey had each purchased an automobile policy from United Auto, that they had each paid the policy’s premium based on the initial amount quoted by the agent, that United Auto issued the policy not at the initially quoted rate but at a higher rate, that United Auto sought to charge…”
Pierson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1993)
“In addition to their allegations concerning the letter they sent to State Farm and its non-response, the Piersons’ complaint further alleged that the notice they received concerned an additional premium and that State Farm failed to comply with the requirements of section…”
BANKERS INS. COMPANY v. General No-Fault Ins., Inc. (2002)
“See § 627.7282(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000). Bankers failed to return the unearned premium to its insured when it sent the refund instead solely to the premium finance company.”
Aries Insurance v. Aleman (1997)
“The trial court found that section 627.7282, Florida Statutes (1993), contained unambiguous language requiring a letter that outlines the three options available in the statute and includes a cancellation date.”
Hernandez v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2000)
“His suit was based on section 627.7282(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which requires that the insured be sent a three-option letter whenever “a policyholder has been charged a premium that is incorrect for the coverage set forth in the insurance application.”
Lescano v. Southern Group Indemnity, Inc. (2002)
“Appellant claims that pursuant to section 627.7282, Florida Statutes (1999), *1039 which sets forth the procedure an insurance company must follow when an additional premium is sought, she had three options when notified of the increase in premium: (1) pay the additional…”
Prime Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Kepali Group, Inc. (2025)
“5th DCA 1995) (concluding that the cancellation of an auto insurance policy for failure to pay an additional premium was ineffective be- cause the insurer failed to comply with the notice requirements in Fla. Stat. § 627.7282 ). And if Prime had wanted coverage to imme- diately…”
— 627.7282(1) — 4 cases
Smith v. New Hampshire Indemnity Co. (2011)
“§ 627.7282, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). As he did in the proceedings below, Appellant concedes that if this statute does not apply to the renewal of his policy, NHIC is entitled to summary judgment.”
US SEC. Ins. Co. v. Figueroa (2005)
“See § 627.7282(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). These three options included: (1) pay the additional premium by August 19, 2000, and maintain the policy under its original terms; (2) cancel the policy by August 19, 2000, and demand a refund of any unearned premiums; or (3) take no action…”
Sotomayor v. Seminole Casualty Insurance Co. (1995)
“” In combination, these provisions are practically identical to section 627.7282, except the contract re- *665 quired Seminole to give Sotomayor fifteen days’ notice, not ten.”
Hernandez v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2000)
“His suit was based on section 627.7282(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which requires that the insured be sent a three-option letter whenever “a policyholder has been charged a premium that is incorrect for the coverage set forth in the insurance application.”
— 627.7282(1)(a) — 1 case
Smith v. New Hampshire Indemnity Co. (2011)
“§ 627.7282, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). As he did in the proceedings below, Appellant concedes that if this statute does not apply to the renewal of his policy, NHIC is entitled to summary judgment.”
— 627.7282(1)(c) — 4 cases
Gonzalez v. Eagle Ins. Co. (2006)
“" A similar statute, section 627.7282(1)(c), dealing with the charging of an incorrect premium, specifies for the cancellation of the policy and the return of any unearned premium to the insured.”
Amstar Ins. Co. v. Cadet (2003)
“However section 627.7282, which deals with an incorrect premium charge, is not applicable to the instant case.”
US SEC. Ins. Co. v. Figueroa (2005)
“See § 627.7282(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). These three options included: (1) pay the additional premium by August 19, 2000, and maintain the policy under its original terms; (2) cancel the policy by August 19, 2000, and demand a refund of any unearned premiums; or (3) take no action…”
BANKERS INS. COMPANY v. General No-Fault Ins., Inc. (2002)
“See § 627.7282(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000). Bankers failed to return the unearned premium to its insured when it sent the refund instead solely to the premium finance company.”
— 627.7282(2) — 1 case
Smith v. New Hampshire Indemnity Co. (2011)
“§ 627.7282, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). As he did in the proceedings below, Appellant concedes that if this statute does not apply to the renewal of his policy, NHIC is entitled to summary judgment.”
— 627.7282(3) — 1 case
— 627.7282(l)(c) — 1 case
Stinson v. United Automobile Insurance (1999)
“hey had each purchased an automobile policy from United Auto, that they had each paid the policy’s premium based on the initial amount quoted by the agent, that United Auto issued the policy not at the initially quoted rate but at a higher rate, that United Auto sought to charge…”
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.