Case Name: Max PAWLIK and Ernestine Pawlik, his wife, Appellants, v. Kent STEVENS and O'Neil, Lee & West, Inc., a Florida corporation, Insurance Company of North America, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-12-24
Citations: 499 So. 2d 61
Docket Number: Nos. 85-1629, 86-359
Parties: Max PAWLIK and Ernestine Pawlik, his wife, Appellants, v. Kent STEVENS and O’Neil, Lee & West, Inc., a Florida corporation, Insurance Company of North America, Appellees.
Judges: DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 499
Pages: 61–62

Head Matter:
Max PAWLIK and Ernestine Pawlik, his wife, Appellants, v. Kent STEVENS and O’Neil, Lee & West, Inc., a Florida corporation, Insurance Company of North America, Appellees.
Nos. 85-1629, 86-359.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec. 24, 1986.
George W. Salter of T.G. LaGrone & Associates, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.
Linda F. Wells of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Orlando, for appellees, Kent Stevens & O’Neil, Lee & West, Inc.
Walter A. Ketcham of Walker, Miller & Ketcham, P.A., Orlando, for appellee Insurance Co. of North America.

Opinion:
COWART, Judge.
In this action by an insured against an insurance agent, an insurance agency, and a liability insurance company the ultimate issue is whether the insured made an informed, knowing rejection of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage in the amount of his bodily injury liability limits as provided by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1979).
We reverse the summary judgment entered against the insured because the depositions on file disclose issues of material fact (Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c)) as to (1) whether the insurance agent or insurance agency was acting as an agent of the insured when the insurance agent signed the insured's name to a form selecting lower UM limits, and (2) if the insured, personally or by his agent, selected UM coverage in the amount of $85,000, whether he did so knowing that UM coverage in the amount of his bodily injury liability limits ($100,000) was available to him from the liability insurance company (without regard to information relevant only to the insured's subjective determination of the affordability to him of greater UM coverage as compared to the lesser UM coverage).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.