Prida v. Transamerica Insurance Finance Corp.

651 So. 2d 763, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2285, 1995 WL 91844
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 8, 1995
DocketNos. 93-2751, 93-2750
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 651 So. 2d 763 (Prida v. Transamerica Insurance Finance Corp.) 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
Prida v. Transamerica Insurance Finance Corp., 651 So. 2d 763, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2285, 1995 WL 91844 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Theodore M. Prida and Howard Valdemar Strong, appeal from adverse final summary judgments. We affirm.

Transamerica Insurance Finance Corporation [TIFCO], a premium finance company, mailed the insured a notice of cancellation stating that the motor vehicle liability insurance policy was cancelled. As required by Section 627.848(3), Florida Statutes (1993),1 [764]*764the notice of cancellation contained language advising the insured that certain insurance coverage is required by the financial responsibility law. Section 627.848(3). also requires that this language be “in type or print of which its face shall not be smaller than 12 points.” In the instant case, the required language was set forth in the notice of cancellation in contrasting red color. The language, however, was only in 9.5 point type.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment arguing that the 12-point type requirement of Section 627.848(3) is mandatory. The plaintiffs further allege that because TIFCO failed to strictly comply with the 12-point type requirement, the insurance policy was not cancelled. TIFCO moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted their motion finding that the 12-point type requirement was permissive. These appeals follow.

The only issue in these appeals is whether the 12-point type requirement of Section 627.848(3) is mandatory or permissive. We find that it is permissive, and therefore, affirm the final summary judgments.

Under the circumstances of the case, we find that the use of the smaller type size did not nullify the notice. Section 627.848(1) provides for two types of notices. First, a notice of intent to cancel,2 and second, the notice of cancellation. § 627.848, Fla.Stat. (1993). The language in question is required to be on the notice of cancellation only. The notice of cancellation is a confirmation that the policy is cancelled for non-payment in accordance with the premium finance agreement. The language in question merely advises the insured that “proof of financial responsibility is required to be maintained continuously for a period of 3 years, pursuant to chapter 324, and the operation of vehicle without such financial responsibility is unlawful.” This language is not a condition precedent to cancellation since cancellation has already been accomplished. Further, as the plaintiffs acknowledged at oral argument, Section 627.848(3) does not provide for the consequences of a violation of that section. Accordingly, we find that the 12-point type requirement is permissive and that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of TIFCO. See Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, 415 So.2d 109, 110-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

BARKDULL and GODERICH, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
651 So. 2d 763, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2285, 1995 WL 91844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prida-v-transamerica-insurance-finance-corp-fladistctapp-1995.