Home
Criminal Defense Felony Defense DUI Defense Drug Possession Traffic Citation White Collar Crime Computer Crimes Scientific Evidence
Contact Info Graham Syfert Biography News Articles Service Location Blog
Car Accident Lawyer
Menu
904-383-7448
F.S. 624.401 on Google Scholar

F.S. 624.401 on Casetext

Amendments to 624.401


The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
Title XXXVII
INSURANCE
Chapter 624
INSURANCE CODE: ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 624.401 Florida Statutes and Case Law
624.401 Certificate of authority required.—
(1) No person shall act as an insurer, and no insurer or its agents, attorneys, subscribers, or representatives shall directly or indirectly transact insurance, in this state except as authorized by a subsisting certificate of authority issued to the insurer by the office, except as to such transactions as are expressly otherwise provided for in this code.
(2) No insurer shall from offices or by personnel or facilities located in this state solicit insurance applications or otherwise transact insurance in another state or country unless it holds a subsisting certificate of authority issued to it by the office authorizing it to transact the same kind or kinds of insurance in this state.
(3) This state hereby preempts the field of regulating insurers and their agents and representatives; and no county, city, municipality, district, school district, or political subdivision shall require of any insurer, agent, or representative regulated under this code any authorization, permit, or registration of any kind for conducting transactions lawful under the authority granted by the state under this code.
(4)(a) Any person who acts as an insurer, transacts insurance, or otherwise engages in insurance activities in this state without a certificate of authority in violation of this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) However, any person acting as an insurer without a valid certificate of authority who violates this section commits insurance fraud, punishable as provided in this paragraph. If the amount of any insurance premium collected with respect to any violation of this section:
1. Is less than $20,000, the offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, and the offender shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 1 year.
2. Is $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000, the offender commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, and the offender shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 18 months.
3. Is $100,000 or more, the offender commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, and the offender shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 2 years.
History.—s. 45, ch. 59-205; s. 1, ch. 61-75; ss. 13, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 64, 809(1st), ch. 82-243; ss. 13, 187, 188, ch. 91-108; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 4, ch. 2003-148; s. 781, ch. 2003-261.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: March 07, 2023
F.S. 624.401 on Google Scholar

F.S. 624.401 on Casetext

Amendments to 624.401


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 624.401
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

624.401 - FRAUD-IMPERSON - ACTING AS INSURER WITHOUT CERTIFICATION - F: T
624.401 4b - FRAUD-IMPERSON - ACT INSURER WO CERT PREMIUM LESS THAN 20K DOLS - F: T
624.401 4b - FRAUD-IMPERSON - ACT INSURER WO CERT PREMIUM 20K TO 100K DOLS - F: S
624.401 4b - FRAUD-IMPERSON - ACT INSURER WO CERT PREMIUM 100K DOLS OR MORE - F: F

Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S624.401
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 624.401.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. Bortell v. White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd.

    2 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 38 times
    Based upon the foregoing, Bortell filed suit in 2006, alleging three causes of action. First, Bortell sought damages pursuant to section 624.155(2), Florida Statutes, which permits a party damaged by a violation of section 624.401 to file suit against an unauthorized insurer. Bortell alleged that by selling insurance in violation of section 624.401, Florida Statutes, the defendants interfered with the development and maintenance of Bortell's economic interests. He alleged that their illegal acts "denied reasonable sales and commission to authorized Florida insurers and agents." Bortell sought actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees.
    PAGE 1044

  2. Venerus v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC

    Case No: 6:13-cv-921-Orl-36GJK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2014)
    Section 772.104 of the Florida Statutes provides a civil remedy for criminal conduct. Plaintiff alleges that the violation of section 624.401 asserted in Count III is a criminal activity entitling Plaintiff to recover under § 772.104. As with Count III, Defendants argue that they are not "insurers" and Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of § 624.401. However, this Court has already held that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim under § 624.401 and that she has alleged monetary damages. Accordingly, Count V will not be dismissed either.
    PAGE 11

  3. Clayton's Auto Glass, Inc. v. First Data Corp.

    12-CV-5018(JS)(AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2013)   Cited 7 times
    FLA. STAT. § 624.401(1) -(2). Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of monetary damages and a declaration that the Insurance Contracts are void or voidable under Florida Statutes Section § 624.155 , which authorizes "[a]ny party [to] bring a civil action against an unauthorized insurer if such party is damaged by a violation of § 624.401 by the unauthorized insurer." FLA. STAT. § 624.155(2) . Defendants argue that this claim fails because Plaintiffs have not alleged damages arising out of Defendants' failure to obtain proper certification. The Court agrees.

  4. Lemy v. Direct Gen. Fin. Co.

    885 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (M.D. Fla. 2012)   Cited 9 times
    A few words on surplus insurance are needed before proceeding to Lemy and Hill's allegations. Generally, no one may sell insurance in Florida without a certificate of authority from the state's Office of Insurance Regulation (“the Office”). Under Section 624.401(4), Florida Statutes, “any person who acts as an insurer, transacts insurance, or otherwise engages in insurance activities in [Florida] without a certificate of authority ... commits a felony” unless the pertinent acts occur in accord with one of a few exceptions. One exception is the sale of surplus line insurance.
    PAGE 1267

  5. AGO

    76-219 (Ops. Fla. Atty. Gen. Nov. 15, 1976)
    SUMMARY: Regulatory licensing of insurance agents is preempted to the state under s. 624.401( 3), F. S., and municipalities therefore have no power to levy regulatory fees on such persons under s. 166.221, F. S. Your question is answered in the negative. Section 166.221, F. S., authorizes municipalities to levy regulatory fees, commensurate with the cost of the regulatory activity, on businesses, but s. 624.401( 3), F. S., preempts the field of regulating insurers and their agents and representatives and operates to prohibit their regulation by municipalities and other local governments. Cf. AGO 074-209. Section 166.221, F. S., provides: A municipality may levy reasonable business, professional, and occupational regulatory fees, commensurate with the cost of the regulatory activity, including consumer protection, on such classes of businesses, professions, and occupations, the regulation of which has not been preempted by the state or a county pursuant to a county charter. (Emphasis supplied.) This provision empowers a municipality to levy regulatory fees on persons who do not maintain a permanent business location or branch office within the municipality. See…

  6. Fla. Dept. of Ins. v. Nat. Amuse. Purchasing

    905 F.2d 361 (11th Cir. 1990)   Cited 14 times
    1. It is DECLARED that sections 627.949, 624.401(1), 627.918, and 626.901(1) of the Florida Statutes are not preempted by the Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1981, as amended by the Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986, 15 U.S.C. § 3901-3906.
    PAGE 367

  7. Shapiro v. Associated Intern. Ins. Co.

    899 F.2d 1116 (11th Cir. 1990)   Cited 91 times
    Fla.Stat.Ann. § 624.401(1) (West 1984). Such regulation of the insurance industry indicates that Florida has a significant interest in litigation involving insurance of risks permanently located in Florida, and further augurs that a Florida court would hesitate to defer to the law of another jurisdiction to control the substantive issues in this case.
    PAGE 1121

  8. Lawyer's Title v. City of West Palm

    402 So. 2d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 1 times
    While municipalities are permitted to impose regulatory fees under Section 166.221, Florida Statutes (1979), the city concedes on appeal that a regulatory fee on insurers would not be permitted pursuant to this section in light of Section 624.401(3), since Section 166.221 specifically provides:
    PAGE 546

  9. Land O'Sun Management Corp. v. Commerce & Industry Insurance Co.

    961 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 4 times
    The legislature has not specifically addressed forum selection clauses contained in environmental insurance policies; however, it has determined that the Office of Insurance Regulation must review and approve insurance policies drafted by insurance companies doing business in Florida. See §§ 624.401(1), 627.410(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Because the policy here, including the forum selection clause, was reviewed and approved by the Office of Insurance Regulation, it cannot be said that the clause violates strong public policy enunciated by statute or judicial fiat. In addition, the clause represents a contract obligation assumed by one of the contracting parties. The contracting parties have the right to demand that the litigation occur in the contractually selected forum. Mgmt. Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
    PAGE 1080

  10. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC

    (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2013)
    But the Shapiro Court concluded that because real property is by nature immobile, insurance contracts regarding real property carry no such risk of sudden modification if the law of the forum where the property is located is applied. Id. Citing the Florida Supreme Court's abandonment of lex loci delictus in favor of a "significant relationship" test for choice-of-law questions in tort actions, the court also noted that, in other areas of law, the Florida Supreme Court had abandoned choice-of-law doctrines similar to lex loci contractus in favor of the Restatement's guidance on conflict of laws. Shapiro, 899 F.2d at 1120 (citing Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1980); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145). In addition, the court further pointed to Florida's statutory requirement that no insurer transact insurance in Florida without complying with the Florida Insurance Code, Shapiro, 899 F.2d at 1121 (citing Fla. Stat. § 624.401( 1)), and Florida's application of the law of the situs of the property in disputes involving real property, id. (citing Xanadu of Cocoa Beach, Inc. v. Zetley, 822 F.2d 982, 984 (11th Cir. 1987); In Re Estate of…
    PAGE 5