Pawlik v. Stevens

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pawlik v. Stevens

499 So. 2d 61, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 43, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11046

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 24, 1986

DocketNos. 85-1629, 86-359

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 499 So. 2d 61 (Pawlik v. Stevens) 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

Pawlik v. Stevens, 499 So. 2d 61, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 43, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11046 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

In this action by an insured against an insurance agent, an insurance agency, and a liability insurance company the ultimate issue is whether the insured made an informed, knowing rejection of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage in the amount of his bodily injury liability limits as provided by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1979).

We reverse the summary judgment entered against the insured because the depositions on file disclose issues of material fact (Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c)) as to (1) whether the insurance agent or insurance agency was acting as an agent of the insured when the insurance agent signed the insured’s name to a form selecting lower UM limits, and (2) if the insured, personally or by his [62]*62agent, selected UM coverage in the amount of $85,000, whether he did so knowing that UM coverage in the amount of his bodily injury liability limits ($100,000) was available to him from the liability insurance company (without regard to information relevant only to the insured’s subjective determination of the affordability to him of greater UM coverage as compared to the lesser UM coverage).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

COWART, Judge.

In this action by an insured against an insurance agent, an insurance agency, and a liability insurance company the ultimate issue is whether the insured made an informed, knowing rejection of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage in the amount of his bodily injury liability limits as provided by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1979).

We reverse the summary judgment entered against the insured because the depositions on file disclose issues of material fact (Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c)) as to (1) whether the insurance agent or insurance agency was acting as an agent of the insured when the insurance agent signed the insured’s name to a form selecting lower UM limits, and (2) if the insured, personally or by his [62]*62agent, selected UM coverage in the amount of $85,000, whether he did so knowing that UM coverage in the amount of his bodily injury liability limits ($100,000) was available to him from the liability insurance company (without regard to information relevant only to the insured’s subjective determination of the affordability to him of greater UM coverage as compared to the lesser UM coverage).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 So. 2d 61, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 43, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pawlik-v-stevens-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack