Case Name: SENTRY INSURANCE, a mutual company, Appellant, v. Clyde R. BROWN, Appellee; Clyde R. BROWN, Appellant, v. SENTRY INSURANCE, a mutual company, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-04-15
Citations: 424 So. 2d 780
Docket Number: Nos. AC-366, AD-291
Parties: SENTRY INSURANCE, a mutual company, Appellant, v. Clyde R. BROWN, Appellee. Clyde R. BROWN, Appellant, v. SENTRY INSURANCE, a mutual company, Appellee.
Judges: McCORD and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 424
Pages: 780–786

Head Matter:
SENTRY INSURANCE, a mutual company, Appellant, v. Clyde R. BROWN, Appellee. Clyde R. BROWN, Appellant, v. SENTRY INSURANCE, a mutual company, Appellee.
Nos. AC-366, AD-291.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 15, 1982.
On Rehearing Oct. 19, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 3, 1982.
Thomas J. Guilday of Akerman, Senter-fitt & Eidson, Tallahassee, for appellant and appellee Sentry Ins., a mutual company.
M. Stephen Turner and Jackson G. Beatty of Culpepper, Beatty & Turner, Tallahassee, for appellee and appellant Clyde R. Brown.

Opinion:
SHAW, Judge.
Clyde Brown is seventy-four years of age and has carried automobile liability insurance with Sentry and its predecessor companies for forty-nine years. On May 9, 1978, he received a traffic citation for driving fifty-four miles per hour in a twenty miles per hour zone and paid a small fine without protest. On or about October 12, 1979, he received a letter from Sentry notifying him that his policy would terminate on December 1, 1979, and would not be renewed because of the traffic violation conviction. A suit, filed by Brown for de claratory judgment against Sentry, was settled by Sentry's agreement to reinstate Brown's policy in light of his long tenure with the company and Brown's agreement to dismiss the suit and his claim for attorney's fees. On February 19, 1980, Brown was involved in an intersection accident in Dothan, Alabama. Although no official traffic citations were issued, it was noted on the accident report that Brown failed to yield the right of way. On or about October 10, 1980, Sentry advised Brown, by letter, that his policy would not be renewed, citing the 1978 speeding ticket and the 1980 accident. In the .latter part of October, 1980, Brown filed suit for declaratory judgment alleging that Sentry had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to renew his insurance. The trial judge found that Sentry had discriminated because of age and that the company's second notice of nonrenewal was arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of applicable provisions of the Florida Insurance Code. Sentry was permanently enjoined from canceling or refusing to renew the policy for the reasons stated in its notice of nonrenewal. On May 15, 1981, an order was entered taxing costs in the amount of $1,154.14 and denying attorney's fees.
The judgment of the trial court is predicated upon Section 627.728(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), which reads as follows:
(c) No insurer shall fail to renew a policy for reasons based entirely on the sex, occupation, marital status, race, color, creed, national origin, residence, military service, or age of the insured, or on the principal place of garaging the insured vehicle in this state, or for any other reason which is arbitrary or capricious.
In support of his complaint Brown introduced evidence of his nearly perfect driving record with the company for forty-nine years, the attempted nonrenewal of his policy after he reached the age of seventy, and Sentry's recent sharp reduction in its percentage of elderly policyholders in Florida. Dr. Ray Solomon, Dean of the College of Business and Professor of Insurance, Florida State University, testified that there was no reasonable underwriting reason not to renew the policy in this instance.
In rebuttal, Sentry introduced evidence that it is a preferred. risk company and, under company policy, speeds in excess of thirty miles per hour over the posted speed limit are a major violation precluding renewal of a policy, regardless of the policyholder's age. John Steven Meyer, Sentry's underwriting manager, testified that in determining whether to underwrite renewals of preferred policyholders, the company considers accidents, traffic violations, frequency of loss, type of car, and past driving history. He testified that length of time with the company is a consideration, but it is secondary to the driving record during the five year period immediately preceding the underwriting analysis. Sentry recognizes a nexus between excessive speed and loss potential by placing speeds in excess of thirty miles per hour over the posted speed in the same category as DWI, reckless driving, and eluding a police officer.
The trial judge found that Sentry's second notice of nonrenewal was arbitrary and capricious and patently discriminatory against appellant Brown because of his age. We disagree and REVERSE. Failure to yield right-of-way, resulting in an accident, and excessive speeds occurring within the most recent five year period are legitimate factors to be reviewed by a company in evaluating a policyholder's risk potential. The evidence shows that Sentry elected not to renew Brown's policy because of objective criteria applied uniformly by the company, irrespective of age. The trial court's finding to the contrary is not supported by the record. We accordingly REVERSE the final judgment in AC-366, thereby mooting the issues raised in AD-291.
McCORD and ERVIN, JJ., concur.