RENATE K. BRANDAL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
Brandal, injured as a motorcycle passenger, sought no-fault insurance coverage under Florida's Automobile Reparations Reform Act. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that motorcycles fall outside the statutory definition of "motor vehicle" and therefore passenger coverage does not apply.
The court held that motorcycles do not fall within the statutory definition of "motor vehicle" under Section 627.732(1), which specifies sedans, station wagons, jeeps, and other four-wheel vehicles. Therefore, personal injury protection coverage does not apply to motorcycle passengers under the Act.
[1] No-fault insurance coverage under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act does not extend to a passenger on a motorcycle.
[2] The definition of "motor vehicle" under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act specifically refers to vehicles with four wheels.
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“"Motor vehicle" means a sedan, station wagon, or jeep type vehicle not used as a public livery conveyance for passengers and includes any other four-wheel motor vehicle used as a utility automobile and a pickup or panel truck which is not used primarily in the occupation, profession, or business of the insured.”
Establishes the statutory definition of motor vehicle under Florida law, which explicitly limits coverage to four-wheel vehicles.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrandal was a passenger on a motorcycle that collided with another vehicle, resulting in personal injuries. At the time, she had automobile insurance …
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 Motor Vehicle Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
MELVIN, WOODROW M., Sr., Associate Judge.
The Appellant was the unsuccessful Plaintiff in the trial court. The parties will be referred to as they were in the trial court.
The Plaintiff was riding as a passenger on a motorcycle when the same collided with a vehicle with the result that Plaintiff sustained certain personal injuries. At all times material Plaintiff had an automobile covered by the standard no-fault coverage required by the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act issued by the Defendant. Defendant denied coverage and Plaintiff filed her complaint. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Upon failure of the Plaintiff to plead further, final judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant and Plaintiff appeals therefrom.
The controlling question in this cause is whether the trial court erred in ruling that the provisions of Section 627.-736(4) (d), Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, does not provide coverage for Plaintiff while riding as a passenger of a motorcycle. The trial court ruled that such Section does not provide coverage, and we agree.
The applicable provisions of the law relating to the term “motor vehicle” are found in Section 627.732(1) F.S.A. wherein it is provided:
“As used in §§ 627.730m527.741 :
(1) “Motor vehicle” means a sedan, station wagon, or jeep type vehicle not used as a public livery conveyance for passengers and includes any other four-wheel motor vehicle used as a utility automobile and a pickup or panel truck which is not used primarily in the occupation, profession, or business of the insured.” And Section 627.736(4) (d) (1), F.S.A. relating to personal injury coverage provides :
“(d) The insurer of the owner of a motor vehicle shall pay personal injury protection benefits for:
1. Accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by the owner while occupying a motor vehicle, or while not an occupant of a motor vehicle or motorcycle if the injury is caused by physical contact with a motor vehicle.” (Emphasis supplied.)
If the legislature intended such coverages to embrace a motor vehicle with less than four wheels, such purpose is not stated or implied. To the contrary, the language employed to set forth the legislative intent leaves no doubt that, as to an occupant of a two-wheel motorcycle, coverage for personal injury protection does not apply. That is the only issue that we determine here.
Appellant strongly urges that Negron v. Travelers Insurance Company, Fla.App., 282 So. 2d 28, is dispositive of the issue here presented. A motorcycle was not involved.
Appellant urges that a strict construction of the Statute will visit unjust results upon those injured while riding a motorcycle. That well may be. However, it is not the proper function of this or any other court to amend a law by judicial decree. The legislature will soon convene and, if in its wisdom, the Statute should be restructured, it is the constitutional body authorized so to do.
The Judgment appealed from is affirmed.
BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nicholson, 337 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…e word “motorcycle” contemplate two-wheeled vehicles. See, e. g., 27A Words and Phrases, “Motorcycle.” Although the appellant urges that the language in the recent case of Brandal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Fla. App.1st 1976, 327 So. 2d 867, suggests that all vehicles of less than four wheels are excluded by F.S. § 627.736(4)(d)(1), we think, despite the reference in that opinion to non-coverage of motor vehicles with less than four wheels, that the case holds otherwise. The First Dist…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Butler, 340 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…leave appellee Butler and other public conveyance passengers who own no automobiles to their common law remedies for negligence, just as the legislature intended for motorcycle operators and passengers. See Brandal v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 327 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Thus it is urged that the legislature’s concern in the quoted provisions of subpara-graph (d)4 was for pedestrians and marginal pedestrians alighting from or boarding a motor vehicle — i. e., a motor vehicle in the generic sense…
-
Morris v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 355 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…rcycles. We have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated, therefore the order appealed is affirmed. Garcia v. Allstate Insurance Company, 327 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Brandal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 327 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Long Island Insurance Co. v. Frank, 328 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Negron v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 282 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)