RICHARD THOMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLSTATE 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.
This case involves a nonresident pedestrian injured in Florida who was denied Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits from the at-fault driver's insurer. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the statute precluding such benefits constitutional because the pedestrian retained a viable tort remedy.
No, the statute is not unconstitutional. The court held that the nonresident pedestrian was not denied a viable remedy because they could still sue the at-fault motorist for damages in tort.
[1] A nonresident pedestrian injured by a motorist in Florida is not entitled to collect Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits from the motorist's insurer under Florida S…
[2] A statute is not unconstitutional if the party challenging it has not suffered a cognizable constitutional harm.
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 fatal flaw in the plaintiff’s entire constitutional analysis is that it presupposes that the nonresident pedestrian plaintiff, who admittedly cannot collect PIP benefits, has been left without a viable remedy for the injuries he sustained and thus has been substantially harmed by the above statute.”
This quote explains the court's primary reason for rejecting the plaintiff's constitutional arguments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Thompson, a nonresident pedestrian, was struck by a motorist in Florida and sought to recover PIP benefits from the motorist's insurer, Allsta…
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 Privileges And Immunities cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Richard Thompson from an adverse declaratory judgment entered in a PIP insurance coverage case. The plaintiff was attempting to cross the street in Lee County, Florida, when he was struck by a motorist who had PIP insurance coverage with the defendant Allstate Insurance Company; the plaintiff is a nonresident of Florida who was not himself covered by PIP insurance. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to collect PIP coverage benefits from the motorist’s insurer [Allstate] under Section 627.736(4)(d)(4), Florida Statutes (1987). The plaintiff agrees but contends the statute is unconstitutional. We find no merit in this contention and affirm.
The fatal flaw in the plaintiff’s entire constitutional analysis is that it presupposes that the nonresident pedestrian plaintiff, who admittedly cannot collect PIP benefits, has been left without a viable remedy for the injuries he sustained and thus has been substantially harmed by the above statute. This is not the case, however, as the nonresident plaintiff pedestrian is free to sue and collect damages for negligence against the tortfeasor motorist without being required to meet a no-fault threshold; indeed, if anything, the tort remedy afforded to the nonresident is financially more substantial than the PIP remedy afforded to a resident. There being no cognizable constitutional harm visited upon the plaintiff by the subject statute, we conclude that the said statute cannot possibly be said to be unconstitutional as being a denial of due process, equal protection, or privileges and immunities; nor can it be said to be an undue burden on interstate travel. See Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 963, 102 S.Ct. 2836, 2843, 73 L.Ed.2d 508, 515-16 (1982); Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S.Ct. 844, 847, 25 L.Ed.2d 174, 178 (1970); Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 396, 68 S.Ct. 1156, 1162, 92 L.Ed. 1460, 1471 (1948); Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9, 15-18 (Fla.1974).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1970)
- Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1948)
- Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1982)
- Washington v. State, 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)
- Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)