Under Florida law, if you fail to disclose that your vehicle is being used for business purposes then your auto insurance carrier can deny coverage and rescind your policy for a material misrepresentation when you submitted your policy application. For example, in DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. ARTHUR THOMAS VOILES, 2021-CA-001248-O, the court issued the following order:
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT, ARTHUR THOMAS VOILES
THIS CAUSE having come before this Court at the hearing on April 27, 2021, on the Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment against the Defendant, ARTHUR THOMAS VOILES, and the Court having considered the same, it is hereupon,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be, and the same is hereby GRANTED, as follows:
1. On April 15, 2021, this Court previously ruled that the First Request for Admissions and Second Request for Admissions served on the Defendant, Arthur Thomas Voiles, were deemed admitted. Specifically, it was deemed admitted that Arthur Thomas Voiles failed to disclose on the application for insurance that the insured vehicle(s) were being utilized for business purposes to move materials for jobs to property sites for A & G Properties Services, Inc. In addition, it was deemed admitted that Arthur Thomas Voiles was not injured in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on August 25, 2020 nor did Arthur Thomas Voiles seek any medical treatment as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on August 25, 2020.
2. This Court finds that the Plaintiff, Direct General Insurance Company’s application for insurance required Arthur Thomas Voiles to disclose that the insured vehicle was being used for business purposes at the time of the policy inception, that Plaintiff provided the required testimony to establish that Arthur Thomas Voiles’ failure to disclose the business use for the insured vehicle was a material misrepresentation because Plaintiff would not have assumed the risk nor issued the policy, and thus, Plaintiff properly rescinded the subject insurance policy.
3. The Court finds there are no genuine issues of material fact as to Arthur Thomas Voiles. The Defendant, Arthur Thomas Voiles did not appear at the Summary Judgment Hearing or file any summary judgment evidence.
4. With respect to Defendant, Arthur Thomas Voiles, a Clerk’s Default was entered against him on March 11, 2021.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
5. Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
6. This Court hereby enters final judgment for Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and against the Defendant, ARTHUR THOMAS VOILES.
7. This Court hereby reserves jurisdiction to consider any claim for costs.
8. This Court finds that the facts alleged by the Plaintiff, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, in its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, the Motion for Final Summary Judgment, the transcript of the recorded statement of ARTHUR THOMAS VOILES, and in the Affidavit of Rose Chrustic, are not in dispute, which are as follows:
a. The DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Policy of Insurance, bearing policy # FLPAXXXXX2944, is rescinded and is void ab initio.
b. The subject insurance policy was rescinded void ab initio pursuant to Florida Statute § 627.409 and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
c. This Final Summary Judgment against Defendant, ARTHUR THOMAS VOILES is effective between Plaintiff and Defendant, and shall not prejudice the rights of any persons not parties to this action. See Fla. Stat. § 86.091.
Source: Florida Law Weekly – 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 171a
Do you have questions or comments? Then please feel free to send Alan an email or call him now at (954) 458-8655.
If you found this information helpful, please share this article and bookmark it for your future reference.