Cases from cite.case.law:

A. SMITH, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INDEMNITY COMPANY, a a s o, 60 So. 3d 429 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Appellant contends the trial court erred by finding that section 627.7282, Florida Statutes, does not . . . NHIC’s affirmative defenses included: (1) section 627.7282 does not apply to the subject policy; (2) . . . At the hearing on NHIC’s motion for summary judgment, NHIC argued that section 627.7282, which requires . . . To determine whether section 627.7282 applies to insurance policy renewals or amendments, and not just . . . It is clear from reading these provisions that section 627.7282 applies to situations when an insurer . . . NHIC charged an incorrect premium, thereby requiring NHIC to follow the procedures outlined in section 627.7282 . . . material fact exist as to whether “a policyholder has been charged a premium that is incorrect....” § 627.7282 . . . factual issues, the majority would affirm as a matter of law based on its determination that section 627.7282 . . . In enacting section 627.7282, the Legislature was attempting to protect consumers from a growing practice . . . The chapter law enacting section 627.7282 titled the statute as follows: An act relating to insurance . . .

GONZALEZ, v. EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 948 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . A similar statute, section 627.7282(l)(c), dealing with the charging of an incorrect premium, specifies . . . Figueroa, 917 So.2d 901, 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), we held that “section 627.7282(l)(c) does not require . . .

U. S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. FIGUEROA,, 917 So. 2d 901 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See § 627.7282(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). . . . See § 627.7282(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). Here, U.S. . . . See § 627.7282(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000). . . . The plain language of section 627.7282(l)(c) requires the insurer to cancel the policy and return the . . . Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in relying on Bankers, and hold that section 627.7282 . . .

AMSTAR INSURANCE COMPANY, v. CADET,, 862 So. 2d 736 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Bankers held that pursuant to section 627.7282(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2000), the refund of premiums . . . However section 627.7282, which deals with an incorrect premium charge, is not applicable to the instant . . .

LESCANO, v. SOUTHERN GROUP INDEMNITY, INC., 813 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Appellant claims that pursuant to section 627.7282, Florida Statutes (1999), which sets forth the procedure . . .

BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. GENERAL NO- FAULT INSURANCE, INC. d b a No- a, 814 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See § 627.7282(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,, 762 So. 2d 551 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . His suit was based on section 627.7282(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which requires that the insured be . . . The trial court found that section 627.7282(1), Florida Statutes (1997), does not apply to renewal policies . . .

STINSON, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 734 So. 2d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . them an additional premium and sent each of them a “three option letter” in conformity with section 627.7282 . . . The complaint requested a declaration of rights with regard to sections 627.7282 and 627.7283, Florida . . . The complaint alleged that United Auto had violated section 627.7282(l)(c) because it did not terminate . . . United Auto argued that there was no cause of action for a violation of section 627.7282 and that the . . . The plaintiffs asserted that they had a cause of action for United Auto’s violation of section 627.7282 . . .

ARIES INSURANCE COMPANY, v. ALEMAN,, 695 So. 2d 910 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The trial court found that section 627.7282, Florida Statutes (1993), contained unambiguous language . . .

SOTOMAYOR, v. SEMINOLE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 650 So. 2d 663 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . followed in the event that a premium has been incorrectly calculated is plainly set forth in section 627.7282 . . . In combination, these provisions are practically identical to section 627.7282, except the contract re . . . The notice manifestly does not meet the requirements of 627.7282(1) or the insurance contract. . . . Seminole urges that section 627.7282 is not the controlling statute because Seminole has an absolute . . . This document, however, cannot substitute for Seminole’s obligation to comply with section 627.7282(1 . . .

G. RIVERA, v. AMERICAN SKYHAWK INSURANCE COMPANY,, 645 So. 2d 540 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Section 627.7282(3), Fla.Stat. (1993) is not ambiguous in its terms relative to cancellation of a policy . . . Section 627.7282(3), Fla.Stat. (1993) reads: (3) No insurer shall unilaterally alter or modify the policy . . .

PIERSON v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 621 So. 2d 576 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . concerned an additional premium and that State Farm failed to comply with the requirements of section 627.7282 . . .