The district court held that, though GEICO did not immediately “make available” when it transferred the Laphams’ policy from New Jersey to Florida, it “substantially complied” with Section 627.727(2) by including the UM Option Form USCA11 Case: 21-11468 21-11468 Date Filed: Opinion of the Court Page: 5 of 8 5 in the renewal packet it sent Lapham ten months later. The court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court. The district court granted GEICO’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Lapham’s Motion for Summary Judgment. GEICO argued that it substantially complied with Section 627.727(2) because it (1) made UM coverage available to Lapham for the policy period at issue through the UM Option Form, and (2) Lapham did not make a written request for umbrella UM coverage before the accident. Lapham argued that GEICO’s initial failure to make umbrella UM coverage USCA11 Case: 21-11468 4 Date Filed: Opinion of the Court Page: 4 of 8 21-11468 available when GEICO delivered the policy in Florida was not cured by its subsequent offer of UM coverage during the renewal period, and that Lapham was entitled to umbrella UM coverage as a matter of law. She argued that GEICO’s later refusal to provide UM coverage under the umbrella policy amounted to a breach.
§ 627.727(2), which required GEICO to make umbrella UM coverage available when the policy was delivered in Florida. Specifically, Lapham alleged that GEICO improperly denied UM coverage based on its noncompliance with Fla. Lapham sued GEICO for breach of contract and sought $1,000,000 in umbrella UM benefits under the policy. GEICO denied that claim because Lapham’s policy did not provide umbrella UM coverage. Soon after, she submitted a claim for $1,000,000 in umbrella UM policy benefits to GEICO. In March 2018, Lapham was involved in a car accident that caused her serious injuries. The Laphams renewed the policy but did not return the UM Option Form to GEICO or otherwise request umbrella UM coverage during the renewal period. The packet included a form titled “Personal Umbrella Policy Option Form-Florida Uninsured Motorists Coverage” that offered the Laphams $1,000,000 in UM coverage. In June 2017, GEICO sent the Laphams a renewal packet that would extend the Laphams’ coverage through August 18, 2018. The 2016 policy covered the Laphams through August 18, 2017. When the Laphams moved to Florida in August 2016, GEICO transferred their policy from New Jersey to Florida, issuing an amended policy declaration reflecting the Laphams’ new USCA11 Case: 21-11468 21-11468 Date Filed: Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 8 3 address. The umbrella policy did not contain uninsured motorist coverage, as UM coverage was not required by New Jersey law. Sheila Lapham and her husband Mark applied for and received a personal umbrella insurance policy from GEICO while living in New Jersey. On appeal, she argues that GEICO violated Florida law by failing to make UM coverage available to her when her policy was first delivered to her in Florida, and that GEICO’s subsequent offer of UM coverage during the policy renewal period did not cure that violation. Lapham filed a breach of contract action seeking UM coverage under the umbrella policy.
#Geico umbrella insurance full#
GEICO paid her claim under the automobile policy in full but denied her claim for uninsured motorist coverage under the umbrella policy on the grounds that Lapham never elected UM coverage for that policy. After Lapham was involved in an automobile accident, she sought coverage under her primary automobile insurance policy and an umbrella policy issued by GEICO. PER CURIAM: Sheila Lapham appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of her insurer, Government Employees Insurance Company. 8:19-cv-02016-CEH-AAS _ USCA11 Case: 21-11468 2 Date Filed: Page: 2 of 8 Opinion of the Court 21-11468 Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. 21-11468 Non-Argument Calendar _ SHEILA LAPHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, Defendant-Appellee. USCA11 Case: 21-11468 Date Filed: Page: 1 of 8 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit _ No.
0 kommentar(er)
