INDUSTRIAL FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LUCILLE G. COWAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An insurance company appeals a trial court's decision that an insured was entitled to recover the full $5,000 personal injury protection limit despite a $1,000 deductible. The appellate court reverses, holding that the deductible properly reduces the maximum recovery to $4,000.
The deductible provision properly reduces the maximum liability under the policy. The amount 'otherwise due' under the policy is $5,000, and the $1,000 deductible must be subtracted from this amount, making the maximum liability $4,000, regardless of the magnitude of the insured's actual damages.
[1] A deductible clause in an automobile insurance policy applies to the amount otherwise due under the policy's personal injury protection provision.
[2] The amount of a policyholder's damages does not negate the application of a deductible clause in a personal injury protection provision.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“said amount to be deducted from the amounts otherwise due each person subject to the deduction”
Statutory language establishing that the deductible must be subtracted from the policy benefits otherwise owed
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLucille Cowan purchased an automobile insurance policy from Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company with a $5,000 personal injury protection prov…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Policy Deductible cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an order holding that the appellee (plaintiff) was entitled to recover $5,000.00 under the personal injury protection provision of an automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant.
The plaintiff purchased an automobile insurance policy from the defendant, which contained a $5,000.00 personal injury protection provision, pursuant to Section 627.-736, Florida Statutes (1975 and 1976). The policy contained the following language, providing a deductible as to the personal injury protection coverage: “This Policy Contains $1000 Deductible on Personal Injury Protection”. On February 24, 1977, plaintiff was involved in a vehicular accident, suffering injuries and incurred medical expense and lost wages of approximately $40,000.00.
The defendant denied the claim under the personal injury protection provision, and the instant suit was filed. During pendency of the suit, the defendant tendered an offer of judgment for $4,000.00, the difference between the $5,000.00 personal injury protection limits and the $1,000.00 deductible clause. The plaintiff thereupon moved for determination of coverage, contending she was entitled to the full $5,000.00 coverage, notwithstanding the deductible of $1,000.00, because her losses greatly exceeded the maximum amount of coverage. After hearing on the motion, the trial court held that, notwithstanding the deductible provision, the plaintiff was entitled to the full $5,000.00 because of the amount of ner damages. We disagree and reverse.
Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1975 and 1976), reads in part as follows:
* * * * * *
“Each insurer * * * shall, at the election of the owner, issue a policy endorsement, * * * which endorsement shall provide that there shall be deducted from personal protection benefits that would otherwise be or become due to the policy holder * * * an amount of either two hundred and fifty dollars, five hundred dollars, or one thousand dollars, again as the policyholder elects, said amount to be deducted from the amounts otherwise due each person subject to the deduction. * * * ” [emphasis added]
The amount “otherwise due” under the policy is $5,000.00. Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1975). The maximum liability of the company under these circumstances would be $4,000.00.
Reversed and remanded, with directions to enter a final judgment in accordance with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Int'l Bankers Ins. Co. v. Arnone, 552 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1989)…CA 1988), based on conflict with Thibodeau v. Allstate Insurance Co., 391 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), disapproved, Govan v. International Bankers Insurance Co., 521 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1988), and Industrial Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Cowan, 364 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), disapproved, Govan v. International Bankers Insurance Co., 521 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1988). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Great Oaks Casualty Insurance Co. v. Kelly, no. 89-1129 (Fla. 3rd DCA May 23, 1989), was certified to this Cour…1 / 2
-
Int'l Bankers Ins. Co. v. Govan, 502 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…2d 1337 (Fla. 1983). We acknowledge that our holding appears to conflict with the opinions of two of our sister courts. See Thibodeau v. Allstate Insurance Co., 391 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Cowan, 364 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Those cases appear to hold that “benefits otherwise due” refers to the no-fault benefit limits, such as the $10,000.00 limit involved herein. If that were true the “deductible” would not be a deductible at all in the manner that…
-
Govan v. Int'l Bankers Ins. Co., 521 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1988)…and wage-loss benefits under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1983). The district court acknowledged conflict with Thibodeau v. Allstate Insurance Co., 391 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and Industrial Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Cowan, 364 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). We find conflict and have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we approve the decision of the district court of appeal, and disapprove Thibodeau and Industrial Fire to the extent they are…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence