HERIBERTO MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
OLD SECURITY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Heriberto Martinez, a passenger injured in an automobile accident, appealed a summary judgment denying him personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the driver's insurance policy. The court affirmed, holding that a passenger who is himself the owner of an insured vehicle is statutorily excluded from PIP coverage under the driver's policy.
A passenger who is the owner of a vehicle subject to Florida's Automobile Reparations Reform Act is not entitled to PIP benefits under the driver's insurance policy, as such owners are statutorily excluded from coverage under §627.736(4)(d).
[1] A passenger in a motor vehicle is not entitled to personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the owner's insurance policy if the passenger owns a vehicle for which s…
[2] The insurer of the owner of a motor vehicle is not obligated to pay personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to a non-resident, non-relative passenger who owns a vehicle…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
The statutory provision that is dispositive of the case, establishing the exclusion for vehicle owners from PIP coverage under another's policy
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartinez was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by Georgina Tano when it was struck from behind by a hit-and-run driver. Tano's vehicle was i…
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 Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals a summary final judgment entered in favor of defendant Allstate Insurance Company in his suit to recover benefits under policies issued by Allstate and Old Security Casualty Insurance Company.
Plaintiff, Heriberto Martinez, was a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by Georgina Tano. Georgina’s car was struck from behind by another vehicle whose driver left the scene of the accident. At the time, Georgina’s vehicle was insured by defendant Allstate Insurance Company and plaintiff’s vehicle, although not involved in the accident, was insured by defendant Old Security Casualty Insurance Company. Following the accident, plaintiff sued both insurers for PIP benefits under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act [§ 627.727, Fla.Stat., F. S.A.]. The trial judge granted defendant Allstate’s motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff primarily contends that the trial judge erred in entering summary judgment for Allstate because, as a passenger, he is entitled to the PIP benefits under the driver’s insurance policy. We cannot agree.
We find that § 627.736(4) (d), which reads in pertinent part as follows, to be dispositive of this issue:
“(d) The insurer of the owner of a motor vehicle shall pay personal injury protection benefits for:
;fc jfs ^ H*
“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 motor vehicle or motorcycle, 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 quired under §§ 627.730-627.441,
In this case it is undisputed that plaintiff is not a resident or relative of the household of Georgina Taño and that plaintiff owned a vehicle as to which security is required under § 627.736, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Thus, it is apparent that plaintiff, owner of a vehicle subject to the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, is not entitled to PIP benefits under defendant Allstate’s policy.
We find plaintiff’s second point on appeal without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sec. Ins. Co. v. Howgate, 343 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ed to personal injury protection benefits from the owner of a motor vehicle which is not an insured motor vehicle under this insurance . . . ” Security relies on this court’s decision in Martiniez v. Old Security Casualty Insur [*643] ance Company, 327 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), which involved an injured passenger claiming no-fault personal injury protection benefits under the driver-owner’s insurance policy, and held that the passenger was not entitled to personal injury protection benefits under the dr…