FLORIDA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
TROPICANA PRODUCTS, INC., AND GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD., APPELLEES
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.
Florida Farm Bureau sought reimbursement from a commercial vehicle owner and its insurer under a PIP insurance statute without proving fault. The court held that Section 627.7405 requires a showing of fault despite its title change from "Subrogation" to "Right of Reimbursement," and affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.
Section 627.7405 requires a showing of fault and constitutes a subrogation statute despite its title change. A PIP insurer cannot recover from a commercial vehicle owner or insurer without establishing facts that would support a subrogation claim, as a no-fault reimbursement right would violate equal protection principles.
[1] A personal injury protection (PIP) insurer providing benefits under a private passenger motor vehicle policy has a statutory right of reimbursement against the owner or l…
[2] The right of reimbursement granted to a PIP insurer against a commercial vehicle owner or its insurer is not dependent on a showing of fault by the commercial vehicle.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“any insurer providing personal injury protection benefits on a private passenger motor vehicle shall have, to the extent of any personal injury protection benefits paid to any person as a benefit arising out of such private passenger motor vehicle insurance, a right of reimbursement against the owner or the insurer of the owner of a commercial motor vehicle”
The statutory language of Section 627.7405 establishing the right of reimbursement at issue in the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Farm Bureau paid personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to its insured under a private passenger motor vehicle policy when the insured was …
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 PIP cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The single issue presented is whether a personal injury protection (PIP) insurer has a statutory right of reimbursement from the owner or liability insurer of a commercial vehicle, without regard to fault, where the PIP insurer has paid benefits to its insured under a private passenger motor vehicle insurance policy for injuries incurred when the insured was struck by a commercial vehicle.
At the heart of the controversy is Section 627.7405, Florida Statutes (1981), which provides:
627.7405 Subrogation.—
Notwithstanding any other provisions of ss. 627.730-627.741, any insurer providing personal injury protection benefits on a private passenger motor vehicle shall have, to the extent of any personal injury protection benefits paid to any person as a benefit arising out of such private passenger motor vehicle insurance, a right of reimbursement against the owner or the insurer of the owner of a commercial motor vehicle, if the benefits paid result from such person having been an occupant of the commercial motor vehicle or having been struck by the commercial motor vehicle while not an occupant of any self-propelled vehicle.
Appellant contends that Section 627.7405 is not a subrogation statute which requires a showing that the commercial vehicle owner and its insurer were at fault, but grants a “pure right of reimbursement without regard to ... fault” where a PIP carrier has paid benefits to its insured owing to injuries caused by a commercial vehicle. As evidence of legislative intent appellant compares the 1978 and 1981 versions of the statute, which were entitled Subrogation, with the 1982 version which is entitled Insurers’ Right of Reimbursement. (The statute remained, otherwise, unchanged.)
Rejecting appellant’s argument, the trial court held that such a construction would be unconstitutional “as it would create two classifications of owners and insurers of vehicles, i.e., owners and insurers of commercial vehicles and owners and insurers of all other vehicles, without a rational basis for such classification....” It then looked to the pleadings and the stipulated facts presented in support of the motion for summary judgment and, finding no allegation of “facts which would give rise to a claim of subrogation in favor of the plaintiff,” entered judgment for the commercial vehicle owner and its insurer. We agree.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dealers Ins. Co., Inc. v. JON Hall Chevrolet Co., Inc., 547 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…utomobile policy. Dealers later filed suit under section 627.7405 against Jon Hall to recover PIP benefits it paid. The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice, citing Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Tropicana Products, Inc., 456 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 464 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1985), as authority for holding the statute unconstitutional.1 We reverse. Section 627.7405, Florida Statutes (1985), provides: 627.7405. Insurers’ right to reimbursement Notwithstanding any…
-
Amerisure Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 897 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 2005)…of Appeal in Dealers Insurance Co. v. Jon Hall Chevrolet Co., 547 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), but certified conflict with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tropicana Products, Inc., 456 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth below, we approve the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision that section 627.7405, Florida Statutes (2001), does not violate Amerisure’s righ…
-
Tucker Transp. Co., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 883 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…S, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur. . See also Amerisure Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 865 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d [*359] DCA 2004) (citing Dealers Ins. and certifying conflict with Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 456 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)), review granted, SC04-387 (Sept. 10, 2004). . The questions are: "A. Is an employer immune under section 440.11, Florida Statutes from suit brought by an insurer under section 627.7405 for reimbursement of personal injury protec…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence