When Rejected in Writing no UM/UIM Coverage
Post 4939
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v5sz2eb-when-rejected-in-writing-no-umuim-coverage.html?mref=22lbp&mrefc=2 and at https://youtu.be/bQegaaSsIIM
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 to clarify its rights, duties, and obligations under Florida’s Transportation Network Company (TNC) Act regarding uninsured motorist coverage. Progressive sought a declaration that Florida law did not require it to provide uninsured motorist coverage for a car crash that occurred while Monasterio was engaged in a prearranged ride as an Uber “partner-driver” under contract with Rasier-DC.
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. Among other requirements, the insurance must provide uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage as required by statute.
The auto insurance policy issued by Progressive to Rasier-DC did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for Rasier-DC or its TNC drivers. It provided bodily injury and property damage liability coverage, comprehensive and collision coverage, and limited medical payments coverage. It covered TNC drivers under contract with Rasier-DC if the driver was operating an “insured auto,” which included “[a]ny auto” being used by a TNC driver providing a prearranged service using the ride-share application accessed with the driver’s valid credentials.
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.
The statute clarifies, however, that the requirements for uninsured motorist coverage “do not apply to any policy which does not provide primary liability insurance that includes coverage for liabilities arising from the maintenance, operation, or use of a specifically insured motor vehicle.”
For policies that do not provide liability coverage for any specifically insured motor vehicle, the insurer must make uninsured motorist coverage available as part of the application for insurance. The coverage required under the statute is not applicable when, or to the extent that, an insured named in the policy makes a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy.
Neither Rasier-DC nor any other named insured paid the premium for uninsured motorist coverage. To the contrary, an authorized representative of Rasier-DC signed a written statement explicitly rejecting all such coverage.
Based on the evidence submitted the district court entered summary judgment in favor of Progressive, Rasier-DC, and Uber on Monasterio’s counterclaim and crossclaim.
THE APPEAL
The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the statutory text is clear. Florida’s TNC Act requires TNC drivers engaged in a prearranged ride to have uninsured motorist coverage “as required” by the uninsured vehicle coverage statute.
Because the statute did not require uninsured motorist coverage for the auto insurance policy covering Monasterio as a TNC driver, the TNC Act did not require that coverage either. 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 and uninsured motorist coverage was not required because Rasier-DC made a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy.
Because statute did not require uninsured motorist coverage for the auto insurance policy the TNC Act did not require Progressive, Rasier-DC, or Uber to provide that coverage for Monasterio.
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://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Like this:
Loading…
