LESLIE SHIVERS, APPELLANT,
v.
ENTERPRISE LEASING 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.
The court reversed a trial court ruling that an insurance company, not the rental car company, was obligated to pay PIP benefits. The appellate court found that the insurance policy did not provide coverage to the injured driver, making the rental company liable.
Yes, Enterprise Leasing Company is obligated to provide PIP benefits to Shivers. The court found that the insurance policy of the friend who rented the car did not provide coverage to Shivers, and Enterprise's statutory construction argument was rejected.
[1] A rental car agreement's language requiring an authorized rental driver's insurance to be primary does not create coverage where none otherwise exists.
[2] An automobile insurance policy issued to the lessee of a rental vehicle does not provide personal injury protection (PIP) coverage to an authorized driver who does not ow…
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 parties stipulated that the rental contract signed by the lessee complied with section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, in that it contained the appropriate language to make an authorized rental driver’s “valid and collectible” insurance primary for the limits of liability and personal injury protection (PIP) coverage.”
Establishes the contractual basis for the dispute regarding primary insurance coverage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeslie Shivers was injured while driving a car rented from Enterprise. The rental contract complied with Florida law making the authorized driver's in…
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 Action For Pip Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
[*495] PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Leslie Shivers, was injured in an automobile accident while she was driving a vehicle that a friend had rented from Enterprise. The parties stipulated that the rental contract signed by the lessee complied with section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, in that it contained the appropriate language to make an authorized rental driver’s “valid and collectible” insurance primary for the limits of liability and personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. The lessee of the Enterprise vehicle had an automobile insurance policy through Aries Insurance Company. However, at the time of the accident, Shivers did not own a motor vehicle, nor did she reside in the same household with a relative who owned a motor vehicle. As a result, there was no PIP coverage for Shivers in her own household.
Shivers sued Enterprise for PIP benefits, but the trial court ruled that Aries, rather than Enterprise, was obligated to pay for Shivers’ PIP benefits.
We reverse, because the Aries policy does not provide PIP coverage to Shivers. See Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Devitis, 924 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 870 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The relevant provisions in the Aries policy are substantively indistinguishable from those at issue in Devitis and Morgan. Here, the Aries policy did not extend valid and collectible coverage to Shivers, nor was Aries required to provide PIP coverage to Shivers under section 627.736, Florida Statutes.
Furthermore, we have considered, and rejected, Enterprise’s “statutory construction” argument that section 627.7263 requires Aries to provide PIP coverage under these circumstances. See Direct Gen. Ins. Co. v. Vreeman, 943 So. 2d 914, 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“The coverage shifting language of the rental car agreement cannot serve to create coverage where none otherwise exists.”).
Consequently, Enterprise is obligated to provide PIP coverage to Shivers.
Reversed.
WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chiropractic Clinics of S. Fla., PL, 322 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Devitis, 924 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Domingo Sanchez v. State, 870 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 870 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Direct Gen. Ins. Co. v. Aurea Vreeman, 943 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)