Date: 09-20-2024

Case Style:

Cindy Dunkel v. Progressive Select Insurance Company

Case Number: 2019-CA003835

Judge: Vincent S. Chiu

Court: Circuit Court, Orange County, Florida

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Orlando Insurance Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Kurt T. Koehler

Description:

Orlando, Florida declaratory judgment insurance law lawyer represented the Plaintiff.

In June 2011, Kenneth Dunkel, a single man, applied to Progressive for insurance coverage for his vehicles. Cindy Browning was listed on the application as a "rated driver" because she lived at the same address. As a rated driver, Cindy had rights to the bodily injury benefits under the policy. Under the title "Relationship" on the application, Kenneth was identified as "Insured" and Cindy was identified as "Other." Progressive uses "Other" to refer to someone unrelated to the applicant by blood or marriage. Kenneth subsequently signed the Florida Uninsured Motorist Coverage Selection/Rejection Form, choosing to "reject all Uninsured Motorist coverage." Directly above his handwritten signature, the form advised:

I understand and agree that this selection of the option above applies to my liability insurance policy, and will also apply to any renewals or replacements of such policy that are issued with the same Bodily Injury Liability limits as this policy. If I decide to request a change to my selection, the change will not become effective until the Company receives your selection on this form and it has been completed and signed.

In December 2012, Kenneth changed his marital status on the policy to "married" and added Cindy to his policy as a "named insured"; her relationship status on the policy changed from "Other" to "Spouse" at that time. A Revised Renewal Declarations Page was issued shortly thereafter to reflect the changes. It shows both Kenneth and Cindy as "named insureds" and that UM coverage had been rejected. No premium was charged for UM coverage. Progressive did not send a new UM Selection/Rejection Form when Cindy became a named insured. Although Cindy could have requested a change in coverage once she became a named insured, she did not. Every Renewal Declarations Page that issued thereafter reflected both Kenneth and Cindy as named insureds and that UM coverage had been rejected.

In October 2015, Cindy was involved in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured motorist. She gave Progressive timely notice of the accident and sought to recover under the UM portion of the policy. When Progressive determined there was no UM coverage, Cindy filed the underlying declaratory judgment suit. Progressive answered and raised the affirmative defense that a valid and enforceable rejection of UM coverage was in effect at the time of the accident, and thus Cindy was not entitled to UM coverage under the policy.

Both parties moved for summary judgment. Cindy's position was that once she became a "named insured" on the policy, Progressive was required to send her the UM Selection/Rejection Form. Progressive, on the other hand, argued that Kenneth's rejection of UM coverage carried forward to each renewal of the policy; had Cindy wanted to change that decision, she would have had to contact Progressive, which she did not do.

The trial court denied Progressive's amended motion for summary judgment and granted Cindy's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that a new contract was created when Cindy's status changed to "named insured" and, thus, Progressive was required to send her the UM Selection/Rejection Form.

* * *

Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Dunkel, 6D2023-1429 (Fla. App. Sep 20, 2024)

Outcome: Reversed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: