Ellman v. Occidental Fire & Casualty Co. of North Carolina

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ellman v. Occidental Fire & Casualty Co. of North Carolina

763 So. 2d 1133, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17281, 1999 WL 1260000

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 1999

DocketNo. 99-0726

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 763 So. 2d 1133 (Ellman v. Occidental Fire & Casualty Co. of North Carolina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ellman v. Occidental Fire & Casualty Co. of North Carolina, 763 So. 2d 1133, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17281, 1999 WL 1260000 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Occidental. See § 627.727(2), Fla. Stat. (1984). Occidental’s policy provided only excess coverage to Appellant’s husband, Donald Ellman, and USF & G, his personal automobile policy, provided primary coverage. Further, at the time he rented the automobile in question from Value Rent-A-Car, Donald Ellman explicitly rejected the opportunity to purchase primary coverage from Occidental. Therefore, Occidental was under no obligation under the rental car agreement to furnish uninsured motorist coverage to him. See generally, Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So.2d 1026, 1028 (Fla.1991); Tres v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 705 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

We do not address, as it is moot, Appellant’s argument that there remain issues of fact regarding whether rejection of uninsured motorist coverage by Value Rent-A-Car and Donald Ellman was enforceable as informed, because the written rejections did not follow the statutory form.

STONE, POLEN, and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Occidental. See § 627.727(2), Fla. Stat. (1984). Occidental’s policy provided only excess coverage to Appellant’s husband, Donald Ellman, and USF & G, his personal automobile policy, provided primary coverage. Further, at the time he rented the automobile in question from Value Rent-A-Car, Donald Ellman explicitly rejected the opportunity to purchase primary coverage from Occidental. Therefore, Occidental was under no obligation under the rental car agreement to furnish uninsured motorist coverage to him. See generally, Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So.2d 1026, 1028 (Fla.1991); Tres v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 705 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

We do not address, as it is moot, Appellant’s argument that there remain issues of fact regarding whether rejection of uninsured motorist coverage by Value Rent-A-Car and Donald Ellman was enforceable as informed, because the written rejections did not follow the statutory form.

STONE, POLEN, and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 So. 2d 1133, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17281, 1999 WL 1260000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellman-v-occidental-fire-casualty-co-of-north-carolina-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack