Even though F.S. 627.727(1) require that the written rejection of UM coverage or selection of lower UM limits be on an approved form, some courts have held that the named insured may reject UM coverage or select lower UM limits orally if the insurer proves that the oral rejection or selection of lower limits was knowingly made. Union American Insurance Co. v. Cabrera, 721 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ledford, 691 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Adams v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 574 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Chmieloski v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 563 So.2d 164, 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). When selecting your coverages for an automobile policy, be careful that you do not tell the insurance agent that you want to reject UM coverage. If this happens and you later change your mind on electing UM coverage, you may lose your claim if you are involved in an West Palm Beach car accident with an uninsured motorist prior to notifying your carrier of the change. However, the sneaky insurance carrier may reject your claim without written or oral proof if you are not aware of these requirements.
By contacting an experienced West Palm Beach accident attorney when you have been injured, you can rest assured that the insurance carrier does not get away with any sneaky tricks. The Chmieloski court held that an oral waiver of written requirement by insured “requires proof of an oral rejection before the delivery of the policy, not proof of what the named insured hypothetically would have decided if the coverage had been offered”).
F.S. 627.727(1) provides that uninsured motorist coverage or higher limits need not be included in any policy that “renews, extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing policy with the same bodily injury liability limits” when the named insured has previously rejected the coverage or selected lower limits. Gasch v. Harris, 808 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (new rejection not required when insured replaced insured vehicle without changing bodily injury liability limits, even though insurer charged increased premium for replacement vehicle) In contrast, an insurer was required to obtain new rejection of UM coverage when a policy obtained by a business for an employee was transferred to the employee after employee leased new car. Creighton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 696 so.2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
The exclusion of UM coverage or higher limits does not apply when there has been a gap between the expiration of one policy and the issuance of the next policy. A subsequently issued policy does not replace an “existing policy” and the insurer cannot rely on the rejection obtained with the previous policy if there is a gap between the expiration of one policy and the issuance of the next policy. Finally, you should be aware that the insurer is required to notify the named insureds at least annually of the UM options available under the statute, and if the insurer fails to comply with the annual notification under the statute, the insured is entitled to limits of UM coverage equal to the bodily injury liability limits. Maxwell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 399 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Yzaguirre v. Progressive American Insurance Co., 793 So.2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Allianz Insurance Co. v. Halpenny, 678 So.2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Patterson v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 564 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (notice buried underneath policy jacket insufficient).