JOHNNY LEWIS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., 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.
Appellant is entitled to PIP benefits under his uncle's insurance policy for injuries sustained as a passenger on a county-owned bus, despite the policy's exclusion for vehicles "for hire," because Florida's Automobile Reparations Reform Act mandates coverage in these circumstances.
An insurance contract must be enforced to provide PIP benefits for injuries sustained by a resident household member as a passenger on a county-owned bus, regardless of policy exclusions for vehicles "for hire," under Florida's Automobile Reparations Reform Act.
[1] An insurance contract excluding coverage for vehicles "for hire" must nevertheless provide personal injury protection benefits for injuries sustained by a resident househ…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a resident in his uncle's household, was injured when a truck collided with a county-owned bus in which he was a passenger. The uncle's ins…
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 Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a summary judgment which determined that he is not entitled to payment of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under a contract of insurance between appellant’s uncle and appellee. Appellant is a resident in his uncle’s household and sustained injury when a truck collided with a county-owned bus in which appellant was a passenger. While the insurance contract involved in this case excludes coverage for injuries sustained in a vehicle “for hire,” the contract will nevertheless be enforced as if it were in compliance with Florida’s Automobile Reparations Reform Act, irrespective of the contract’s actual terms. See § 627.733(3)(a), Florida Statutes; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Chapman, 415 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Section 627.-736(4)(d)3, Florida Statutes, requires payment of PIP-benefits in the circumstances of the present case. Section 627.734, Florida Statutes, relating to “Security Requirements,” merely exempts governmental entities from the required provisions of such benefits, and does not affect the obligations of private parties as are involved in the present case. See Chapman. We therefore conclude that, pursuant to § 627.736(4)(d)3, Florida Statutes, the insurance contract between appellant’s uncle and appellee affords coverage for the injury sustained by appellant as a passenger on the county-owned bus.
Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed.
McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd., 447 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act are not applicable to municipally owned vehicles.” The cases cited by appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Chapman, 415 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), and Lewis v. Allstate Insurance Co., 425 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), did not involve the issue before us. Appellants cite Albritton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 382 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), and Webber v. Jordan, 366 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 102 (…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 415 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)