Case Name: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. LUCAS
Court: Florida Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-12-14
Citations: 26 Fla. Supp. 2d 139
Docket Number: Case No. 86-360 AP (County Court Case No. 86-3736SPZ6)
Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v LUCAS
Judges: Before TENDRICH, GOLDMAN, KORNBLUM, JJ.
Reporter: Florida Supplement Second
Volume: 26
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v LUCAS
Case No. 86-360 AP (County Court Case No. 86-3736SPZ6)
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County
December 14, 1987
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Susan M. Utkus for appellant.
Frank and Jan Lucas, pro se.
Before TENDRICH, GOLDMAN, KORNBLUM, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Judgment for Appellees, Frank and Jan Lucas, was entered by the County Court against the Appellant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, their insurer, for damages to their automobile after it was stolen.
Appellant contends that the policy had been cancelled prior to the loss for nonpayment of the premium. The Appellant properly notified the Appellees pursuant to 4627.728(3)(a) F.S.
The trial court determined that the notice was not sufficient since the Appellant had failed to send notice of cancellation to GMAC, the lienholder.
We do not here decide whether a loss payee, lienholder, may have a cause of action against the insurer since that issue is not before us.
It does not appear from the record that GMAC was in fact named as a loss payee in the policy. If not, then certainly the Appellant had no obligation to notify the lienholder. We note further that the statute does not require such notice.
The judgment is therefore reversed with directions to enter Judgment for Appellant.