WALLACE C. MORSE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of motorcycle rider's personal injury protection claim, holding that statutory exclusion of motorcycles from PIP benefits does not violate due process or equal protection.
The statutory exclusion of motorcycles from personal injury protection benefits under Fla.Stat. § 627.736 does not constitute arbitrary or capricious classification violating equal protection.
[1] Exclusion of motorcycles from statutory personal injury protection benefits does not constitute arbitrary or capricious classification in violation of equal protection cl…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorse, a motorcycle rider, suffered a final judgment dismissing his complaint seeking personal injury protection benefits under Florida's no-fault ins…
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 Statutory Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff suffered a final judgment dismissing his complaint which claimed personal injury protection benefits pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 627.736. On this appeal, the single point presented urges that: “the absolute statutory denial of personal injury protection benefits to motorcycle riders deprives them of due process and equal protection of the law.” The point was not raised on the record before us. Plaintiff urges that we consider the application of the exemption set forth in Fla.Stat. § 627.-736(l)1 as fundamental error. See F.A.R. 3-7(i).
We have considered the record in the light of the briefs and oral argument and we hold that fundamental error has not been demonstrated. The Supreme Court of Florida thoroughly examined the act in question in Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company, Fla. 1974, 296 So. 2d 9, and held that with the exception of the property damage limitation of access to the courts, the personal injury aspects of the act were valid and constitutional. In this connection, we note that the Supreme Court specifically held that the exclusion of taxis, motorcycles, buses and commercial vehicles was not an arbitrary or capricious classification and thus does not violate the equal protection provision. See Lasky, supra, at 22.
Affirmed.
. See also Fla.Stat. §§ 627.736(4) (d)l and 627.736(4) (d)4.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Long Island Ins. Co. v. Frank, 328 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…collision was with a motor vehicle. This fact, however, was conceded at oral argument. For the purposes of this appeal, we are considering that the collision was between the motorcycle and a motor vehicle. Compare Morse v. State Farm, Fla.App.1976, 328 So. 2d 542, opinion filed March 2, 1976. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent herewith.…
-
Morris v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 355 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ed, 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
- Washington v. State, 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)
- Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)