Earl Germany and Deborah Germany v. William Dewayne Darby and Federated Mutual etc.
157 So. 3d 521
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2011 Earl Germany, an employee of Hinson Oil, was injured in a work-related car accident with an uninsured motorist while driving a company vehicle.
- Hinson Oil’s automobile policy provided uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage via an endorsement: up to $500,000 for owners/executives and their families, and up to $30,000 for all other insureds, including Germany.
- The employer signed the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation’s approved form electing those lower UM limits.
- Germany (and his wife Deborah) challenged the policy’s differing UM limits, arguing § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat., does not permit different UM limits among insureds.
- The trial court upheld the policy; the Germanys appealed. The First DCA reviewed statutory construction de novo and affirmed the summary judgment for the insurer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 627.727(1) prohibits different UM limits among insureds on the same policy | Germany: statute does not allow rejection/lesser coverage for only some insureds; limits must be uniform | Insurer: statute allows a named insured to select lower limits on behalf of all insureds and does not require a single identical numeric limit for every insured | Court: Permitted — employer elected lower limits in writing for all insureds using the approved form; differing numeric limits among classes of insureds are allowed |
| Whether Varro controls to invalidate differing limits here | Germany: Varro holds § 627.727(1) forbids rejection on behalf of only some insureds, implying differing limits invalid | Insurer: Varro is distinguishable — in Varro the required written election on the approved form was not made; here the approved form was executed and UM was provided to all insureds (albeit at different limits) | Court: Varro inapposite; execution of the approved form and provision of UM to all insureds is controlling |
| Whether the employer’s selection undermines the UM statute’s remedial purpose | Germany: differing limits undermine broad UM protection policy | Insurer: providing any UM coverage to all insureds (versus wholesale rejection) furthers statutory purpose; parties are entitled to the bargained-for coverage | Court: No conflict — the employer provided meaningful UM coverage to all insureds, consistent with the statute’s goals |
| Whether lack of single numeric limit constitutes improper partial rejection | Germany: lower limits for some equals a partial rejection for those insureds | Insurer: statute permits election of "lower limits" on the approved form; selecting different limits for classes of insureds is a permissible election | Court: Election of lower limits via the approved form satisfied § 627.727(1); differing class-based limits are not prohibited |
Key Cases Cited
- Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Phillips, 126 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 2013) (standard of de novo review and statutory interpretation begins with text)
- Maggio v. Fla. Dep’t of Labor & Emp’t Sec., 899 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2005) (statutory construction principles)
- Varro v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 854 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (discussed for the proposition that UM rejection cannot be on behalf of only some insureds)
- Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2002) (limitations on UM coverage valid if consistent with statutory purpose)
- Carguillo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 529 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988) (policy conditions and exclusions permissible when consistent with UM statute)
- Salas v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 272 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972) (UM statute’s remedial purpose to broadly protect citizens)