On May 28, 2009, I blogged on Diaz-Hernandez v. State Farm Casualty Insurance Company, ____ So.3d ____, (May 27, 2009), wherein the 3rd DCA held that:
the provision in the UM policy, requiring the Insured to join the uninsured motorist in the lawsuit filed against the UM carrier, State Farm, is against public policy, we reverse the order dismissing the Insured’s second amended complaint with prejudice, and remand for further proceedings.
State Farm moved for rehearing, and on October 14, 2009, the 3rd denied the rehearing
on the basis of the rule, well-stated by the panel, that a policy provision cannot lawfully restrict the rights of a UM insured beyond those specifically provided by statue.
In its ruling, the Court relied on the Supreme Courts ruling in Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. v. Tepper, 2 So.3d 209 (Fla. 2009) (which I blogged on February 24, 2009). The Court further noted that the 11th Circuit’s ruling in Bodden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 195 F. App’x 858 (11th Cir. 2006) upholding the validity of this very same clause, "could not survive the majority decision in Tepper.