WJA Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Employee Benefit Claims, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

WJA Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Employee Benefit Claims, Inc.

488 So. 2d 121, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1072, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7715

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1619

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 488 So. 2d 121 (WJA Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Employee Benefit Claims, Inc.) 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

WJA Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Employee Benefit Claims, Inc., 488 So. 2d 121, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1072, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7715 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

Finding that, contrary to the specific terms of the parties’ Stop Loss Agreement, the payment of the claim for which WJA Realty Limited Partnership [WJA] seeks reimbursement was not made until after the expiration of the effective period of the excess coverage insurance policy, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of WJA’s second amended complaint. See Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Mirlenbrink, 345 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

We reject WJA’s argument that its payment of the June 1984, premium estopped Hartford from denying excess coverage for a claim paid in July 1984. Estoppel and waiver are inapplicable for two reasons: first, Hartford returned the June premium payment to WJA, cf. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Dana, 434 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (insurance company estopped from denying coverage where injury occurred after past-due premium paid and insurer retained past-due premium); Mixon v. Allstate Insurance Co., 388 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (unconditional acceptance of premium payment constituted waiver of insurer’s right to contend policy lapsed), review denied, 397 So.2d 777 (Fla.1981); second, WJA did not tender a premium payment for July, the month in which the claim was paid. Thus, Hartford was not required to reimburse WJA for its payment of the claim at issue.

Affirmed.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

Finding that, contrary to the specific terms of the parties’ Stop Loss Agreement, the payment of the claim for which WJA Realty Limited Partnership [WJA] seeks reimbursement was not made until after the expiration of the effective period of the excess coverage insurance policy, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of WJA’s second amended complaint. See Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Mirlenbrink, 345 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

We reject WJA’s argument that its payment of the June 1984, premium estopped Hartford from denying excess coverage for a claim paid in July 1984. Estoppel and waiver are inapplicable for two reasons: first, Hartford returned the June premium payment to WJA, cf. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Dana, 434 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (insurance company estopped from denying coverage where injury occurred after past-due premium paid and insurer retained past-due premium); Mixon v. Allstate Insurance Co., 388 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (unconditional acceptance of premium payment constituted waiver of insurer’s right to contend policy lapsed), review denied, 397 So.2d 777 (Fla.1981); second, WJA did not tender a premium payment for July, the month in which the claim was paid. Thus, Hartford was not required to reimburse WJA for its payment of the claim at issue.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 So. 2d 121, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1072, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wja-realty-ltd-partnership-v-employee-benefit-claims-inc-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack