v. Fortune Ins. Co., 677 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Furtado, 502 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Because the policy was effectively cancelled prior to Cadet’s accident, Amstar provides no coverage for the incident she was involved in. Hence there are no genuine issues of material fact and Amstar is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, we reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of Cadet and remand this case to the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of Amstar. REVERSED AND REMANDED. SHARP, W. and PLEUS, JJ., concur. 1 . Cadet argues that she did not receive the notice of cancellation. We will not decide this issue because it was not raised in the trial court. See Cowart v. City of West Palm Beach, 255 So.2d 673 (Fla.1971) (<HOLDING>); J.T.A. Factors, Inc. v. Philcon Servs., Inc.,
holding that the court has discretion not to consider an issue abandoned on appeal holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court holding that appellate court will not consider an argument on appeal that is different from the specific argument presented to the trial court even if it relates to the same general issue holding that an appellate court may not consider an issue not presented to the trial judge on appeal from final judgment on the merits