Progressive Express Insurance v. Camillo, 80 So. 3d 394

Progressive issued an automobile policy to Michel Camillo for Jan 9, 2008 to July 9, 2008, with Camillo and his brother Jean-Paul as insureds.
Cancel Notice dated May 21, 2008 demanded payment by June 5, 2008 or policy would be canceled; Camillo acknowledged receipt.
Renewal Bill dated June 4, 2008 required payment of the unpaid amount by June 5 and renewal by July 9; renewal bill stated minimum renewal of $1,062.17 by July 9 but renewal payment would not renew the policy; Payment Coupon referenced a separate amount due to avoid cancellation.
June 6, 2008 Progressive cancelled for nonpayment; June 7 Camillo paid $537.68; Progressive believed policy still payable and reinstated; June 8 Progressive claimed no lapse and reinstated effective June 5; later bills suggested different renewal periods.
July 26, 2008 Camillo and Jean-Paul involved in accident; Progressive treated policy as expired on July 9, 2008 but reinstated the same day upon payment; December 2008 insureds sought declaration of coverage, Progressive counterclaimed for no coverage.
Post-litigation, Camillo admitted Progressive sent a Verification of Insurance indicating lapse on July 9, 2008 and reinstatement on July 27, 2008; both parties moved for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of lapse by insurer accepting late premiums	Insurer retained delinquent payments, creating waiver of lapse.	Acceptance of late premiums after lapse does not imply waiver if insurer reinstates prospectively.	Insurer may reinstate prospectively without waiver; acceptance alone does not prove waiver.
Prospective reinstatement after expiration without waiving coverage denial for loss	Acceptance of renewal payments after expiration implies coverage for the loss.	Reinstatement after expiration can occur without waiving rights to deny coverage for post-expiration loss.	Affirmative: insurer may reinstate prospectively without waiving the right to deny coverage for the loss.
Estoppel based on allegedly misleading renewal bill	June 8 bill misrepresented policy period, potentially estopping Progressive from denying coverage.	Other correspondence may have clarified; estoppel depends on material receipt of documents.	Genuine issue of material fact exists regarding estoppel; remand for factual resolution.
Affidavit of underwriting specialist whether to be considered at summary judgment	Affidavit supported waiver/renewal facts; should be considered.	Affidavit was self-serving and should be disregarded.	Affidavit properly considered; not solely conclusory; trial court erred in excluding it.

Meeks v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 460 F.2d 776 (5th Cir. 1972) (retention of delinquent premium can waive right to cancel)
Mixson v. Allstate Insurance Co., 388 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (unconditional acceptance of late payment constitutes waiver)
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Mirlenbrink, 345 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (late renewal payments do not necessarily sustain continued coverage; renewal offers may show lapse)
Munford Union Bank v. Am. Ambassador Cas. Co., 15 S.W.3d 448 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (insurer may accept renewal after expiration without waiving lapse)
Monteleone v. Allstate Ins. Co., 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 48, 51 Cal.App.4th 509 (Cal. App. 1996) (renewal offer after lapse may be “short lapse” with explicit terms; no automatic renewal)
W.S.G. West Palm Beach Dev. v. Blank, 990 So.2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (estoppel elements and reliance in contract/insurance)
Lloyds Underwriters at London v. Keystone Equip. Fin. Corp., 25 So.3d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (distinguishes waiver from estoppel in insurance context)
Mobile Med. Indus. v. Quinn, 985 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (distinguishes estoppel and waiver; detrimental reliance requirement)