When Rejected in Writing no UM/UIM Coverage
Read the full article at
https://lnkd.in/gwt49KRg, see the full video at
https://lnkd.in/ggwkMJ_U and at
https://lnkd.in/gbFpkHtK and
https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
When Rejected in Writing no UM/UIM Coverage
Post 4939
Karina Monasterio appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of Progressive Express Insurance Company on Progressive’s complaint for declaratory judgment and Monasterio’s counterclaim against Progressive, and in favor of Rasier-DC, LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc. on her crossclaim against those defendants.
In Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Karina Monasterio, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier – DC, LLC, No. 24-11256, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (November 18, 2024) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the USDC.
FACTS
Progressive sued for declaratory judgment.
Monasterio counterclaimed seeking a declaration that Florida’s TNC Act required Progressive, Rasier-DC, and Uber to provide uninsured motorist coverage for her accident.
Florida’s TNC Act required insurance coverage may be maintained by the TNC, the TNC driver, or the TNC vehicle owner, or it may be provided by a combination of their policies.
FLORIDA UM/UIM COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Florida Statutes provide that no motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle” registered or principally garaged in this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto.
Neither Rasier-DC nor any other named insured paid the premium for uninsured motorist coverage.
THE APPEAL
The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the statutory text is clear. The policy was not issued for any “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle” registered or garaged in Florida. So, the requirements of the statute did not apply.
Because statute did not require uninsured motorist coverage for the auto insurance policy the TNC Act did not.
ZALMA OPINION
It is always important for a court to read the language of the applicable statute and the policy to determine coverage on an automobile insurance policy. Here the TNC, Raiser-DC rejected UM/UIM coverage and coverage was clearly not required by the statute. The only question I have is why the parties thought it was worth their time and effort to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at
https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library –
https://lnkd.in/gwEYkWhen Rejected in Writing no UM/UIM Coverage
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwt49KRg, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggwkMJ_U and at https://lnkd.in/gbFpkHtK and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
When Rejected in Writing no UM/UIM Coverage
Post 4939
Karina Monasterio appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of Progressive Express Insurance Company on Progressive’s complaint for declaratory judgment and Monasterio’s counterclaim against Progressive, and in favor of Rasier-DC, LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc. on her crossclaim against those defendants.
In Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Karina Monasterio, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier – DC, LLC, No. 24-11256, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (November 18, 2024) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the USDC.
FACTS
Progressive sued for declaratory judgment.
Monasterio counterclaimed seeking a declaration that Florida’s TNC Act required Progressive, Rasier-DC, and Uber to provide uninsured motorist coverage for her accident.
Florida’s TNC Act required insurance coverage may be maintained by the TNC, the TNC driver, or the TNC vehicle owner, or it may be provided by a combination of their policies.
FLORIDA UM/UIM COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Florida Statutes provide that no motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle” registered or principally garaged in this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto.
Neither Rasier-DC nor any other named insured paid the premium for uninsured motorist coverage.
THE APPEAL
The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the statutory text is clear. The policy was not issued for any “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle” registered or garaged in Florida. So, the requirements of the statute did not apply.
Because statute did not require uninsured motorist coverage for the auto insurance policy the TNC Act did not.
ZALMA OPINION
It is always important for a court to read the language of the applicable statute and the policy to determine coverage on an automobile insurance policy. Here the TNC, Raiser-DC rejected UM/UIM coverage and coverage was clearly not required by the statute. The only question I have is why the parties thought it was worth their time and effort to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
English
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek