RENE L. SPENCE, PETITIONER,
v.
DAVID O. HUGHES AND IMPERIAL FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court held that non-residents who voluntarily obtain Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage complying with Florida's no-fault statute are entitled to the same tort liability exemption as residents required by law to obtain such coverage. This decision ensures equal treatment between residents and non-residents and encourages voluntary PIP coverage among non-resident travelers.
Non-residents who voluntarily obtain PIP coverage conforming to Florida's no-fault law are entitled to the same tort liability exemption as residents required by statute to obtain such coverage. The tort exemption applies to every individual (resident or non-resident) who actually provides PIP coverage conforming to the no-fault law.
[1] Non-residents who voluntarily obtain personal injury protection (PIP) coverage conforming to Florida's no-fault law are exempt from tort liability to the same extent as r…
[2] Florida's no-fault statute's tort exemption applies to any individual, resident or non-resident, who actually provides PIP coverage conforming to the statute's requiremen…
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“the tort exemption applies not only to those individuals required by statute to provide PIP coverage but to every individual (resident or nonresident) who actually provides PIP coverage conforming to the no-fault law”
States the core holding that the exemption applies broadly to all PIP-insured individuals regardless of residency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRene Spence, a Florida resident, was injured in an automobile accident in Florida caused by a non-resident driver and vehicle owner. Although not requ…
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 Tort Liability Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review Spence v. Hughes, 485 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (en banc), in which the district court certified the following as a question of great public importance:
Are non-residents who voluntarily obtain PIP coverage conforming to Florida’s no-fault law (§ 627.730-627.7405, Fla.Stat.) exempt from tort liability under section 627.737, Florida Statutes, to the same extent as residents who obtain the same coverage because required by statute to do so?
Id. at 905. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and answer the question in the affirmative.
Petitioner, injured in an automobile accident in Florida, brought a tort action against the driver and the owner of the motor vehicle which caused her injuries. Petitioner is a resident of Florida; respondents are both nonresidents. Although not required by Florida law to do so, the nonresident owner had obtained PIP coverage meeting the requirements of Florida’s no-fault statute.* Petitioner admitted to the trial court that she did not suffer threshold injuries but argued that she could maintain a tort action against respondents because the tort exemption does not apply to nonresidents.
The trial court ruled in favor of the nonresident defendants. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court, holding that the tort exemption applies to a nonresident who voluntarily obtains PIP coverage which complies with Florida's no-fault law. 485 So. 2d at 905.
We agree with the district court that the tort exemption applies not only to those individuals required by statute to provide PIP coverage but to every individual (resident or nonresident) who actually provides PIP coverage conforming to the no-fault law. This construction avoids an unconstitutional distinction between residents and nonresidents, and is consistent with the purpose of Florida’s no-fault statute. As the majority below pointed out, “the intent of the legislature ... and the best interests of the residents of the State of Florida would appear to be to encourage non-residents to voluntarily obtain PIP coverage before traveling on the highways of this state.” 485 So. 2d at 905. We approve the well-reasoned opinion of the court below and, therefore, adopt it in its entirety.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON and SHAW, JJ., concur. EHRLICH, J., dissents with opinion with which ADKINS, J., concurs.
*
Section 627.737, Florida Statutes (1983), provides in pertinent part:
(1) Every owner, registrant, operator, or occupant of a motor vehicle with respect to which security has been provided as required by ss. 627.730-627.7405, and every person or organization legally responsible for his acts or omissions, is hereby exempted from tort liability for damages because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of such motor vehicle in this state....
(2) In any action of tort brought against the owner, registrant, operator, or occupant of a motor vehicle with respect to which security has been provided as required by ss. 627.730-627.7405, or against any person or organization legally responsible for his acts or omissions, a plaintiff may recover damages in tort for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, or use of such motor vehicle only in the event that the injury or disease consists in whole or in part of:
(a) Significant and permanent loss of an important bodily function.
(b) Permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement.
(c) Significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement.
(d) Death.
EHRLICH, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the reasoning expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge DAUKSCH.
ADKINS, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bernadette Amente v. Willie B. Newman, M.D., 653 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1995)…entities in this instance, in other circumstances, such as where the doctor serves a more sparsely populated area, more information may have to be redacted from the records to ensure absolute anonymity. Cf. Rasmussen v. South Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1987) (discovery order commanding disclosure of names and addresses of blood donors in attempt to find cause of AIDS was too broad; other less intrusive means were available). Finally, the mere fact that a judge authorized the discovery of th…
-
Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…2d 319, 320 (Fla.1996) (explaining that "[w]e do not have jurisdiction to answer a certified question of great public importance under article V, section 3(b)(4) where there is no district court decision for our review.”); but see Spence v. Hughes, 500 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1987) (granting jurisdiction on a certified question of great public importance from a decision of an equally divided court). . Mr. Powell filed a pro se motion to suppress the results of the search of the house. It is unclear from our record…
-
M.A.B. v. State, 957 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…, JJ., Concur. NORTHCUTT, J., Dissents with opinion. CASANUEVA, J., Dissents with opinion, in which NORTHCUTT, SALCINES, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . In Spence v. Hughes, 500 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1987), the supreme court considered a certified question of great public importance with respect to a decision of an equally divided court.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spence v. Hughes, 485 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)