Florida Statute 647.01 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXVII
INSURANCE

Chapter 647
TRAVEL INSURANCE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 647.01

647.01 Purpose and scope.—

(1) The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public welfare by creating a comprehensive legal framework within which travel insurance may be sold in this state.

(2) This chapter applies to:

(a) Travel insurance that covers any resident of this state and that is sold, solicited, negotiated, or offered in this state.

(b) Policies and certificates that are delivered or issued for delivery in this state.

This chapter does not apply to cancellation fee waivers or travel assistance services, except as expressly provided in this chapter.

(3) All other applicable provisions of the insurance laws of this state continue to apply to travel insurance, except that the specific provisions of this chapter shall supersede any general provisions of law that would otherwise be applicable to travel insurance.

History.—s. 15, ch. 2020-63.

F.S. 647.01 on Google Scholar

F.S. 647.01 on Casetext

Amendments to 647.01

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 647.01

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 647.01.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 647.01

Total Results: 13

In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1996-05-16T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 674 So. 2d 631, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 223, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 827, 1996 WL 268079

Snippet: defend the claim or petition. (c) Continuances. *647(1) Continuances of hearings will not be freely granted

B & B STEEL ERECTORS v. Burnsed

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1991-12-02T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 591 So. 2d 644

Snippet: single subject requirement. The court also held: *647 (1) that the 1991 reenactment of the Workers'

Eaton v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1983-09-29T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 438 So. 2d 822

Snippet: beyond a reasonable *824 doubt." 389 So.2d at 647.[1] (footnote omitted). The trial court gave the full

Fla. Power & Light Co. v. CANAL AUTHORITY, ETC.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1982-11-23T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 423 So. 2d 421

Snippet: e.g., State ex rel. Campbell v. Chapman, 145 Fla. 647, 1 So.2d 278 (1941). Even if at the time the petitions…compare State ex rel Campbell v. Chapman, 145 Fla. 647, 1 So.2d 278 (1941) (where writ of prohibition sought

Benedict v. Foster

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1974-06-12T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 300 So. 2d 8, 1974 Fla. LEXIS 4732

Snippet: . State ex rel. Campbell v. Chapman, 145 Fla. 647, 1 So.2d 278 (Fla.1941). Nos. 45472, 45473

Lewis v. Hodges

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1971-09-15T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 254 So. 2d 397, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5753

Snippet: State ex rel. Campbell v. Chapman, 1941, 145 Fla. 647, 1 So.2d 278. In a scholarly opinion by Judge Rawls

Curtiss v. McCall

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1969-06-17T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 224 So. 2d 354, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5497

Snippet: . State ex rel. Campbell v. Chapman, 145 Fla. 647,1 So.2d 278 (1941). No. L-392 District

State ex rel. McGreevy v. Dowling

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1969-05-14T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 223 So. 2d 89, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5636

Snippet: 666; State ex rel. Campbell v. Chapman, 145 Fla. 647, 1 So.2d 278; In re Mickler’s Guardianship, Fla.1964

Bambrick v. Bambrick

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1964-05-29T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 165 So. 2d 449

Snippet: State ex rel. Campbell v. Chapman, 1941, 145 Fla. 647, 1 So.2d 278. On the other hand, when the record of

Krivitsky v. Nye

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1944-10-23T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 19 So. 2d 563, 155 Fla. 45, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 466

Snippet: 768; State ex rel. Campbell v. Chapman, 145 Fla. 647, 1 So.2d 278. Counsel for appellees contend that the

Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1943-09-24T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 15 So. 2d 175, 153 Fla. 501, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 684

Snippet: Lovett, supra; State ex rel. v. Chapman, 145 Fla. 647, 1 So.2d 278; State ex rel. v. Chillingworth, 132

Neisel v. Moran

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1919-08-21T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 80 Fla. 98, 85 So. 346

Snippet: Fla. 458, 460, 56 Fla. 107; 64 Fla. 154; 53 Fla. 647; 1 Mich. 369; 159 N. Y. 118. As the amendment to Article

Linton v. Walker

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1858-07-01T00:00:02-07:52:58

Citation: 8 Fla. 144

Snippet: insufficient.” — Arch. Ple. & Ev. 314-15 ; 1 Chitty, 647; 1 Florida, 132. *153That a suit in Chancery was the