286 So.3d 157
Fla.2019Background
- Michael Lentini owned a 1992 Corvette insured under a reduced‑premium "collector vehicle" policy issued by American Southern Home Insurance.
- Lentini died in a motorcycle accident; his estate sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under the Corvette policy.
- The Corvette policy limited UM coverage to accidents involving the insured collector vehicle (i.e., excluded coverage while occupying other vehicles).
- American Southern denied coverage; trial court granted summary judgment for insurer relying on Martin v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
- The Fifth District reversed, concluding the policy limitation violated section 627.727; the Supreme Court of Florida granted review to resolve a district conflict.
- The Florida Supreme Court held that §627.727 applies to collector policies and that the UM limitation was invalid because the insurer did not obtain the statutorily required informed consent under §627.727(9).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lentini) | Defendant's Argument (American Southern) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §627.727 applies to specialty/collector vehicle policies | Section applies to all "motor vehicle" policies; collector policy must provide required UM coverage | Specialty reduced‑premium policy is exempt or may lawfully limit UM to the covered vehicle | §627.727 applies to collector policies; no exemption for specialty policies |
| Whether insurer may limit UM to occupancy/use of the collector vehicle without insured's consent | Limitation is invalid because insurer did not follow §627.727(9) informed‑consent procedure | Limitation is valid as written and controls the scope of UM coverage | Limitation invalid: insurer failed to obtain approved written consent and filed rates required by §627.727(9), so exclusion cannot be enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Lentini v. Am. S. Home Ins. Co., 233 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (district court decision reversing summary judgment and holding policy limitation invalid)
- Martin v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 670 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (earlier decision holding §627.727 did not require coverage unconnected to the insured vehicle; disapproved)
- Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 154 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 2014) (interpreting §627.727(9) — insurer must inform insured and obtain approved form for non‑stacking/limitations)
- Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971) (historical analysis of UM coverage referenced and critiqued)
- Young v. Progressive Se. Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2000) (holds policy provisions offering less UM coverage than statute require are void as contrary to public policy)