JO ANN ECHEVARRIA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
The exclusion of a non-owner from a vehicle's PIP coverage is not affected by a deductible on another policy the claimant is entitled to.
A claimant sought personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from a vehicle owner's insurer. The claimant was entitled to PIP benefits from another 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 Personal Injury Protection (Pip) Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We adhere to the holding of Johnson v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 365 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) that the exclusion of a non-owner of a vehicle from the personal injury protection coverage of the owner’s carrier which arises under Sec. 627.736(4)(d)4 b., Fla.Stat. (1981)1 when she is “entitled to personal injury benefits from the insurer of the owner ... of ... another] motor vehicle” is not affected by the fact that the latter policy is subject to a deductible as provided by Sec. 627.739. Farley v. Gateway Ins. Co., 302 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), Protective Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Bergouignan, 335 So. 2d 871 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), and Security Ins. Co. v. Howgate, 343 So. 2d 641 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), upon which the claimant relies, are entirely distinguishable since, unlike the present situation, no valid Florida policy covered the claimant and neither of the statutory exclusions applied. Any claim of the appellant concerning the impropriety of the deductible itself is properly directed against her own p.i.p. carrier under Industrial Fire & Casualty Co. v. Kwechin, 447 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.1983)2 rather than the present insurer. Affirmed.
. § 627.736(4)(d). The insurer of the owner of a motor vehicle shall pay personal injury protection benefits for:
4. Accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by any other person while occupying the owner's motor vehicle or, if a resident of this state, while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle, if the injury is caused by physical contact with such motor vehicle, provided the injured person is not himself:
a. The owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under ss. 627.730-627.7405; or b. Entitled to personal injury benefits from the insurer of the owner or owners of such a motor vehicle.
. And its possible implications. See also, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Herrera, 439 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Mauricio Ameller, 472 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1985)…McDONALD, Justice. We have for review Ameller v. City of Miami, 447 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), which directly and expressly conflicts with Alegre v. Shurkey, 396 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. The issue here is whether a complaint alleging that the city negligently place…
-
Cusick v. City OF Neptune Beach, 765 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…angerous condition is an issue of comparative negligence and is not an absolute bar to either an invitee’s or a tenant’s recovery. Alegre, 396 So. 2d at 251. In 1984, the Third District Court of Appeal, in Ameller ex rel. Ameller v. City of Miami, 447 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), adopted the rationale of the dissent in Alegre and reversed the dismissal of a complaint which had alleged liability on the part of the City in allowing the ground in one of its public parks to remain hard-packed under an erected…
Authorities Cited
- Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kwechin, 447 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1983)
- Farley v. Gateway Ins. Co., 302 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Bentzel v. State, 365 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Protective Nat'l Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Bienvenido Bergouignan and Marta Bergouignan, 335 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Herrera, 439 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Sec. Ins. Co. v. Howgate, 343 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)