Andrew Bray (Miami, FL) (PIP) obtained final Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant in this matter based upon the cancellation of the subject insurance policy for nonpayment of premium. On October 20, 2015, Tania Alvarez purchased a Florida auto policy from Direct General. She failed to pay the monthly premium due on February 20, 2016 and the policy was canceled for nonpayment of premium effective March 5, 2016. On August 7, 2016, Ms. Alvarez was involved in a motor vehicle accident and on August 25, 2016 sought medical treatment from the Plaintiff, more than six months after she had stopped paying her premiums and six months after the policy had been canceled. Ms. Alvarez provided her insurance information to the Plaintiff medical provider, who then later filed a PIP claim with the Defendant which was denied based upon the prior cancellation of the policy.
The PIP lawsuit was filed in 2017. Plaintiff refused to dismiss the subject lawsuit and contended that the cancellation of the policy was not properly accomplished. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the cancellation notice and proof of mailing did not meet the requirements of Florida Statute §627.728(5) as it relates to a “postal proof of mailing”. Plaintiff also contended that the bulk mailing certificate and documents had a potential inconsistency as to the number of pieces mailed, as well as a lack of a date. In response, Direct General provided an affidavit regarding the process by which policies are canceled for nonpayment of premium, as well as provided the Intelligent Mail Barcode (“IMB”) provided by the United States Postal Service.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff refused to concede and Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed a cross Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion for Summary Judgment was heard via Zoom on October 8, 2020 by Judge Levitt. After hearing the arguments of counsel and receiving a number of affidavits, documents, and evidence into the record, on November 17, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the same issue. The Court reserved jurisdiction to determine an entitlement to attorney’s fees on the part of the defense.