Cases from cite.case.law:

RANDO, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,, 39 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 2010)

. . . See § 627.4132, Fla. . . .

RANDO, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,, 556 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . Section 6274132 In 1976, the Florida legislature enacted Florida Statutes § 627.4132, which prohibited . . . Stat. § 627.4132 (1976). . . . However, in 1980 the legislature amended § 627.4132 to state that the statute did not apply to UM coverage . . .

O BRIEN, M. O v. STATE FARM FIRE CASUALTY CO. a a, 999 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . insurance” when an automobile policy endorsement added coverage for an additional vehicle after section 627.4132 . . . that Pohlman decision “dealt exclusively with a question of statutory interpretation under section 627.4132 . . .

AUTO- OWNERS INSURANCE CO. v. PETRIK, 915 So. 2d 640 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . . § 627.4132, Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis added). . . . a policy’s anti-stacking provision relating to uninsured motorist coverage was contrary to section 627.4132 . . .

GASCH, v. L. HARRIS, 808 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Pohlman dealt exclusively with a question of statutory interpretation under section 627.4132, Florida . . .

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a v. S. ROTH, 744 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . , after the supreme court permitted stacking in Tucker, the Legislature reacted by enacting section 627.4132 . . .

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO. v. STAFSTROM, 668 So. 2d 631 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Pohlman court held that a new contract on the added vehicle was created so that the provisions of section 627.4132 . . . However, section 627.4132, unlike section 627.727, did not have a provision limiting its applicability . . . The Pohlman court probably would have reached a different conclusion had section 627.4132 provided: This . . .

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, v. J. DOUGLAS,, 654 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1995)

. . . These summaries explain that the legislature enacted a non-stacking statute in 1976, section 627.4132 . . . The present law, s. 627.4132, is the so-called “anti-stacking law.” . . . Present Situation: Section 627.4132, F.S., is the so-called “anti-stacking law.” . . .

GRANT, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,, 620 So. 2d 778 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Citing section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), which prohibits the stacking of UM coverage, the court . . .

FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY COMPANY, v. HURTADO,, 587 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 1991)

. . . Trombley, 445 So.2d at 709, which construed section 627.4132 as permitting only named insureds and their . . . We begin by noting that there is nothing on the face of section 627.4132 to preclude Hurtado from receiving . . . It provided: 627.4132 Stacking of coverages prohibited. — If an insured or named insured is protected . . . (amending § 627.4132, Fla.Stat. (1979)). . . . Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1987), provides: 627.4132 Stacking of Coverages prohibited. — If . . . Although I agree that section 627.4132 does not provide a remedy to Hurtado under preexisting case law . . .

HURTADO v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY COMPANY,, 557 So. 2d 612 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . In 1976, the Florida legislature adopted section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976), prohibiting the stacking . . . any form of insurance coverage, but in 1980, the statute was amended and the prohibition repealed. § 627.4132 . . . class of individuals the Senate Statement contemplated would benefit from the 1980 amendment to section 627.4132 . . . The Senate Statement provides a more complete analysis of the effect of section 627.4132, Florida Statutes . . . Hurtado falls within the class of insureds expressly deemed to benefit from the 1980 amendment to section 627.4132 . . .

G. MOORE, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCATION,, 808 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1987)

. . . . § 627.4132 (Supp.1976), which reads as follows: Stacking of coverage prohibited. . . .

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. W. KAUFFMAN,, 495 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Coming full circle, the 1976 version of section 627.4132, Florida Statutes, which furnished the underpinnings . . .

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOC. v. DIXIE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 487 So. 2d 84 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . At issue here, as in Harbach, is the interpretation of section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (the anti-stacking . . .

FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, v. POHLMAN,, 485 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1986)

. . . At that time, section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), provided that every uninsured motorist policy . . . Section 627.4132 was amended, effective October 1, 1980, to remove this restriction and allow an insured . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. v. GANT, a L. S., 478 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1985)

. . . district court affirmed summary judgment on the stacking issue, holding that the amendment of section 627.4132 . . . In Dewberry this Court held that applying section 627.4132 to prohibit the stacking of uninsured motorist . . .

W. POHLMAN v. FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, d b a a, 471 So. 2d 644 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . In 1976, the Legislature first enacted Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976). . . . Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), re-enacted in 1981 and in effect in 1982, provided: . . . "627.4132. . . . The statute in effect at the time the policy was written, Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), . . . provided: "627.4132 Stacking of coverages prohibited. . . .

AUTO- OWNERS INSURANCE CO. v. PROUGH,, 463 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . In 1976, after those cases were decided, the legislature enacted section 627.4132, Florida Statutes ( . . . reduce the coverage available by reason of insurance policies insuring different named insureds. § 627.4132 . . .

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, v. BEEM,, 469 So. 2d 138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . This exclusion remained invalid until the legislature enacted section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp . . . Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976) had two purposes: firstly, it limited an insured to coverage . . . applying to uninsured motorists. § 627.4132, Fla.Stat. . . . Appellant contends that the public policy behind Mullis was changed with the passage of section 627.4132 . . . unpersuaded that the new section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984) intended to clarify section 627.4132 . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. v. GANT, a L. S., 460 So. 2d 912 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . The first issue concerns the application of section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1983). . . . Accordingly, we find that section 627.4132, as amended October 1, 1980, may constitutionally be applied . . .

METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. GRAY, 446 So. 2d 216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Prior to its amendment effective October 1, 1980, section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1979), mandated . . . Thus, the amendment to section 627.4132 does not apply in the instant case unless, between the effective . . . material way change the terms and conditions of the existing policy and the 1980 amendment to section 627.4132 . . . severable contract and further assuming that under section 627.412(1), Fla.Stat., the provisions of section 627.4132 . . . and severable contract” to James Gray should not be used as a device to allow an amendment to section 627.4132 . . . dissent in this case because I think the October 1, 1980, amendment to the anti-stacking statute, section 627.4132 . . . This section shall not apply: (1) To uninsured motorist coverage. § 627.4132(1), Fla.Stat. (1981). . . . .

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. TROMBLEY,, 445 So. 2d 709 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . This appeal concerns stacking of uninsured motorist coverage under Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes . . . The trial court found that Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1980), permitted stacking of uninsured . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. G. ROBERTS,, 444 So. 2d 573 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . This appeal involves construction of the phrase “different named insureds” as used in Section 627.4132 . . . The court concluded that “to permit stacking in this instance would be in violation of Section 627.4132 . . . district held on the narrow issue of statutory construction that it agrees with Lowry that Section 627.4132 . . .

AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, v. KELLEY, 446 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . See Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1980). . . .

VANDERWALKER, v. COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 441 So. 2d 178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . effective date of chapter 80-364, Laws of Florida, which rendered the “anti-stacking” statute, section 627.4132 . . . The Florida Supreme Court recently decided to the contrary, holding that section 627.4132, Florida Statutes . . . Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), provides that an “insured is protected only to the extent . . .

NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE GROUP, v. HARBACH,, 439 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)

. . . We disapprove the decision of the district court and find that section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp . . . We must determine whether the legislature, by enacting section 627.4132 in 1976, intended to change the . . . Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), reads as follows: Stacking of coverages prohibited. — . . . We conclude that section 627.4132, as written when this action arose, had two purposes. . . . In addition, the legislative staff analysis of the 1980 amendment of section 627.4132 states, in part . . .

REYNOLDS v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 437 So. 2d 195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . The second involves the applicability and construction of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977). . . . Kuhn, 374 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), erroneously concluded that Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes . . . And so to the question of the applicability and construction of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977 . . . McLellan decision was cited in both the Kuhn and Indomenico cases as authority for construing Section 627.4132 . . . .2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), has construed the statute correctly (at page 1217): In summary, Section 627.4132 . . . identical policy exclusion to facts on all fours with those in this case, held that by virtue of Section 627.4132 . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. L. TAYLOR,, 434 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . To permit stacking of these policies would in this instance be a violation of section 627.4132, Florida . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. v. R. NORTHROP V., 437 So. 2d 706 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . In Lowry, the court held that Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1979), prohibits stacking of multiple . . . construction argued by the parties, we agree with the decision in Lowry, supra, that the language in Section 627.4132 . . . Section 627.4132 provided as follows on July IS, 1980, the date of the accident in this case: 627.4132 . . . whether the statute is self-executing in view of its language that “the policy shall provide,” Section 627.4132 . . .

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. M. STERN,, 433 So. 2d 48 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Lumbermens contends that Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), permits an insurance company to exclude . . . Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), provides as follows: “If an insured or named insured is protected . . . We believe our result here is consistent with the plain meaning of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes . . .

M. MAY, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., 430 So. 2d 999 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . these two policies with a third policy issued after October 1, 1976, the effective date of section 627.4132 . . . After a non-jury trial the trial court held that section 627.4132 was incorporated into each of the contracts . . . Dewberry’s policy was renewed on August 3, 1976, prior to the October 1, 1976, effective date of section 627.4132 . . . reaffirm this general rule and find that appellant was placed on notice of the effectiveness of section 627.4132 . . . Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976), reads: Stacking of coverages prohibited. — If an insured . . .

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, v. GLENN,, 428 So. 2d 367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . appellant involve cases which were decided upon interpretation of the anti-stacking statute, Section 627.4132 . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. LEWIS N., 425 So. 2d 603 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . In 1976, the Florida Legislature enacted section 627.4132. 627.4132 Stacking of coverages prohibited. . . . To support this contention, appellant cites a line of cases, all decided under section 627.4132, Florida . . . The court did not mention section 627.4132 explicitly and perhaps did not consider whether that section . . . Kokay, 398 So.2d 1355 (Fla.1981), which they interpreted as holding that section 627.4132 solely dealt . . . It is true that section 627.4132 may be literally read to apply to the instant case. . . .

LOWRY, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 421 So. 2d 668 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . court correctly concluded that to permit stacking in this instance would be a violation of Section 627.4132 . . .

LUIS, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 419 So. 2d 423 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Sec. 627.4132, Fla.Stat. (1977); see, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. . . .

J. STOLFI, v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 416 So. 2d 43 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Under Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), aggregation is allowed if the claimant is a named insured . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. PIATT,, 417 So. 2d 705 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . The anti-stacking provision of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), in effect at the time of these . . .

DUARTE, v. SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE CO., 414 So. 2d 32 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Sec. 627.4132, Fla.Stat. (1977); Kokay v. South Carolina Ins. . . .

HARBACH, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE GROUP, a, 413 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . This case is at cross-purposes, with the statute, Section 627.4132, as determined by the supreme court . . . In summary, section 627.4132 applies to bar coverage only where multiple coverages are issued to the . . .

H. HINES, v. WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY,, 408 So. 2d 772 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . was repudiated by the legislature by the enactment of the so-called “anti-stacking” statute, section 627.4132 . . . recover uninsured motorist benefits under his father’s policy because the anti-stacking statute (§ 627.4132 . . . The concluding sentence of section 627.4132 expressly exempts such situations from its purview. . . .

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. M. GORMAN E. s FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, v. M. GORMAN E., 404 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . The Gormans, however, claim that these provisions conflict with section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1979 . . . Section 627.4132 provides as follows: If an insured or named insured is protected by any type of motor . . . The Gormans contend that the last sentence of section 627.4132 applies because the two policies were . . .

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. MARTIN, Jr., 399 So. 2d 536 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . .§ 627.4132 law, since Francisco, Jr. was a relative of the named insured residing in his household and . . . While the stacking of vehicles insured in one policy was precluded by § 627.4132, Fla.Stat. (1977), it . . .

SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, v. KOKAY, a, 398 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1981)

. . . courts, aggregating twenty-eight judges, have struggled to determine what the last sentence of section 627.4132 . . . issue in conflict concerns the application of the last sentence of the “anti-stacking” statute, section 627.4132 . . . The trial court concluded that under section 627.4132 only the $10,-000 limit of one policy was available . . .

KENILWORTH INSURANCE COMPANY, A. v. I. DRAKE, 396 So. 2d 836 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . “Stacking,” now prohibited by section 627.4132, Florida Statutes, occurs when an owner of several vehicles . . .

L. WILLARD, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 395 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 366 So.2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), to hold that section 627.4132 . . .

FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, v. JOHNSON,, 392 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . requires uninsured motorist coverage to be offered with automobile liability insurance, and Section 627.4132 . . . Before passage of the anti -stacking statute, Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976), this second . . . -364, § 1, Laws of Fla. effective October 1, 1980, eliminates uninsured motorist coverage from Sec. 627.4132 . . .

FIGUEREDO, v. LEATHERBY INSURANCE COMPANY,, 392 So. 2d 287 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . This accident occurred in 1975; therefore, the “antistacking” statute, Section 627.4132, enacted in 1976 . . .

NEDUCHAL, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a a, 397 So. 2d 925 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Neduchal’s action for injuries arising from an automobile accident, the trial judge ruled that section 627.4132 . . .

DAY, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a, 388 So. 2d 351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Guaranty Company, however, it was contended that no stacking was possible under the provisions of Section 627.4132 . . . Section 627.-4132, Florida Statutes provides: 627.4132 Stacking of coverages prohibited. . . . State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 366 So.2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), that Section 627.4132 . . . (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), reached an entirely different result, holding that the last sentence of Section 627.4132 . . . inappropriately based upon the court’s interpretation of the supposed intent of the legislature in enacting s. 627.4132 . . .

J. LAUREDO, v. FIDELITY CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK,, 388 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . However, the appellant overlooks the wording of the “no-stack” statute [Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes . . .

INDOMENICO, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY,, 388 So. 2d 29 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Prior to the adoption of the anti-stacking statute, Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), the effect . . . Kuhn, 374 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), we observed: A reading of Section 627.4132 clearly evidences . . . Kuhn, supra, plaintiff here seeks to circumvent Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), by arguing . . . Under Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), an insured or named insured is protected only to the . . . The term “vehicle” referred to in Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), is broader than the term . . .

MOTOR CLUB OF AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, v. LANDA,, 388 So. 2d 10 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Plaintiff/appellant relied upon the anti-stacking statute, Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1979), . . .

MORENO v. FIDELITY CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK,, 385 So. 2d 127 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . abrogated by policy provision, as the accident herein occurred prior to the effective date of Section 627.4132 . . .

L. BURT T. Sr. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, NOBLES, v. L. BOYETTE, 383 So. 2d 966 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . issue presented by this appeal is whether the last sentence of the “anti-stacking” statute, Section 627.4132 . . . Section 627.4132 reads: If an insured or named insured is protected by any type of motor vehicle insurance . . . reasoned: The entirely clear and totally unambiguous language of the concluding sentence of Section 627.4132 . . . the drafters would have repeated the use of the word “stacked,” so that the last sentence of Section 627.4132 . . .

STEPHAN, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, 384 So. 2d 691 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Stephan contends that the trial court erred in awarding State Farm a summary judgment under Section 627.4132 . . . State Farm, however, declined coverage under any of the four policies contending that Section 627.4132 . . . State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 378 So.2d 330 (Fla.2d DCA 1980) we held that Section 627.4132 . . .

KOKAY, a v. SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 380 So. 2d 489 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . involves the application of the last sentence of the recently-enacted “anti-stacking” statute, Section 627.4132 . . . what it says and that the statute does not operate to prevent “stacking,” in accordance with the pre-627.4132 . . . We hold to the contrary. § 627.4132, which entirely governs this case, provides in its entirety as follows . . . As the insurer concedes, that would be the case absent the existence of § 627.4132. Tucker v. . . . As worded, § 627.4132 serves, as in the Kuhn case, supra, and in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. . . .

E. COX, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 378 So. 2d 330 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . adopt this understanding of “stacking” when it enacted the anti-stacking statute quoted below in 1976: 627.4132 . . .

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SEARLE M. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, M., 379 So. 2d 131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . Initially, it should be noted that Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977) does not apply to this claim . . .

SOUTHEASTERN FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. EARNEST n k a, 378 So. 2d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . cases all involve the law applicable prior to the effectiveness of the anti-stacking statute, Sec. 627.4132 . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. WIMPEE,, 376 So. 2d 20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . Appellant urges that the anti-stacking statute, Section 627.4132, Fla.Stat. (1977), prohibits uninsured . . . Section 627.4132, Fla.Stat. (1977). . . . Section 627.4132 provides an insured is protected only to the extent of coverage he has on the vehicle . . . As our supreme court recently said, in upholding the constitutionality of Section 627.4132, The appellants . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. H. KUHN W., 374 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . The dispositive question presented for our determination is whether Kuhn is precluded by Section 627.4132 . . . Statutes (1977), below, from recovery of the uninsured motorist benefits provided in the truck policy. “627.4132 . . . A reading of Section 627.4132 clearly evidences a two fold purpose: (1) to prohibit the stacking of coverages . . . In an attempt to circumvent Section 627.4132, Kuhn argues that his motorcycle is not a “vehicle.” . . .

R. HAUSLER H. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 374 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . In their briefs the parties argue the issue of the definition of “vehicle” as used in Section 627.4132 . . . We find that it is unnecessary to address this point because Section 627.4132 does not apply to .this . . . The policy in question was issued and delivered a month before the governor signed Section 627.4132 into . . . Neither party was on notice of the limitations soon to be imposed by Section 627.4132. . . . reaffirm this general rule and find that appellant was placed on notice of the effectiveness of Section 627.4132 . . .

GILLETTE, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 374 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1979)

. . . Circuit, in and for Escambia County, in which the court passed upon the constitutionality of section 627.4132 . . . The question presented is whether, on its face, section 627.4132 is an unconstitutional infringement . . . J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . 627.4132 Stacking of coverages prohibited . . .

LEZCANO R. v. LEATHERBY INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 372 So. 2d 214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . This case arose in 1975, therefore, § 627.4132 is not applicable. . . .

YADEN, v. HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 375 So. 2d 5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . This case arose prior to the enactment of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976), which prohibits . . .

A. BUNCH v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT INDEMNITY COMPANY, a, 370 So. 2d 455 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . seeking to recover for an accident which occurred October 9, 1976, appellants were precluded by Section 627.4132 . . . Company, 363 So.2d 1077 (Fla.1978), wherein the Supreme Court restricted the application of Section 627.4132 . . . accordance with Dewberry, if the policies in question were issued prior to October 1, 1976, Section 627.4132 . . .

HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. RICHENDOLLAR,, 368 So. 2d 603 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . The reader should note that § 627.4132, Fla. . . . Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 363 So.2d 1077 (Fla.1978), holds that § 627.4132 is not applicable to insurance . . .

McLELLAN, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 366 So. 2d 811 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . It appears conceded that prior to the passage of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976), Michael would . . . Defendant, on the other hand, contends that the Legislative purpose in passing Section 627.4132, supra . . .

FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY CO. v. L. ANDREWS,, 369 So. 2d 346 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . The accident in question occurred in 1975, thus Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976), is not applicable . . .

C. DEWBERRY, Jr. C. Jr. v. AUTO- OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,, 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1978)

. . . , because the final judgment of that court passed initially and directly on the validity of Section 627.4132 . . . Appellant argued the passage of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), could not affect his . . . Renewing the arguments he made in the trial court, appellant posits that (1) Section 627.4132, Florida . . . The Governor signed Chapter 76-266 (Section 627.4132) into law on June 27, 1976, to apply to all claims . . . ADKINS, J., concurs in result only. . § 627.4132, Fla.Stat. . . .

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. F. BRYAR, 349 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Section 10 of Chapter 76-266 (now Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes [Supp. 1976]) prohibits the stacking . . .

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a v. WOLFSON,, 348 So. 2d 661 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Under the newly-enacted Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), which took effect October 1, . . .

HUNT, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 349 So. 2d 642 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . the 1976 session, the Florida legislature revised the No-Fault Law in Florida and pursuant to Section 627.4132 . . .