Under section 627.727(1), vehicle liability insurance policies must include UM coverage unless the named insured rejects such coverage in writing. But, the company only has to provide information abou tthe available coverage in the annual notice.
Mr. Beckmeyer rejected UM coverage in his application for auto insurance. The initial six-month policy period was August 28, 2005, to February 28, 2006. Before the policy period expired, Progressive sent Mr. Beckmeyer a renewal reminder and notice of premium due to continue the policy for another six months. The renewal notice did not include information regarding UM coverage options, and Mr. Beckmeyer did not elect such coverage for the renewal policy period, February 28, 2006, to August 28, 2006. Mr. Beckmeyer was fatally injured by an uninsured motorist on May 26, 2006. The personal representative of Mr. Beckmeyer’s estate asserts that Progressive’s failure to include the UM coverage information with the six-month renewal notice allows the estate to recover UM liability benefits to which Mr. Beckmeyer was entitled.
The District court of Appeal found today that the insurer was not required to include information about UM coverage options in six-month policy renewal notice — Trial court correctly interpreted plain language of statute as requiring only annual notice, even where, as in this case, the policy renews every six months — Trial court correctly found insured was not entitled to UM benefits where insured initially rejected UM coverage and did not elect such coverage for renewal policy period.
Be sure you have check the box for UM coverage. Don’t let this happen to you or your loved ones!
The National Law Journal (3/15, Qualters) reports, “Judging by the recoveries that National Law Journal affiliate VerdictSearch counted among its Top 100 Verdicts of 2009,” commercial verdicts fell last year. “A bright spot for plaintiffs attorneys was personal injury causes of action. Medical malpractice awards jumped from $321 million to $509.2 million; motor vehicle verdicts hit $738.9 million (up from $470 million); and products liability jumped to $1.1 billion from $458 million the year before.”
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (3/14, Fauber) reported, “For years, drug companies sought out influential university doctors with impressive credentials to bring their message to other doctors and persuade them to write prescriptions for their products.” But as “the practice of doing promotional speaking for drug companies has come under fire in recent years,” more “medical schools…have developed conflict-of-interest policies that ban such talks.” Companies have, therefore, “been forced to back away from that approach,” turning to private physicians instead, who are not regulated by conflict-of-interest policies. As a result, US Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) “has co-introduced legislation requiring companies to release payments to doctors to highlight conflicts of interest for the public.”
