MARGARET TAPSCOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. 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.
Margaret Tapscott was denied personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under Florida's Automobile Reparations Reform Act because she owned a motor vehicle subject to registration, triggering the statutory bar to claiming benefits under her father's policy. The court affirmed, holding that temporary mechanical failure does not excuse the registration requirement; only vehicles not maintained for operation on public streets and highways are exempt.
The court held that appellant was barred from claiming PIP benefits under her father's policy because she owned a motor vehicle required to be registered under Florida law. A vehicle's temporary inoperability does not excuse the registration requirement; only vehicles not maintained for operation on public streets and highways are exempt. Temporary mechanical failure insufficient to show abandonment of the vehicle as a means of transportation.
[1] Motor vehicles required by Florida law to be registered are subject to the security requirements of the Automobile Reparations Reform Act.
[2] Owners of motor vehicles required to be registered are excluded from personal injury protection benefits under another's policy if they own a vehicle for which security i…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“only those motor vehicles which are required by Florida law to be registered are subject to the security requirements of the Automobile Reparations Reform Act. The owners of such vehicles, and those alone, are excluded from the benefits afforded by § 627.-736(4) (d) 3.”
Establishes the core legal standard: registration requirement determines eligibility for exclusion from PIP benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret Tapscott, living in her father's household, was injured while driving her father's car insured by State Farm. At the time of the accident, he…
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
SMITH, Judge.
Summary judgment was entered against appellant Margaret Tapscott on her claim against State Farm for personal injury protection benefits payable under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, § 627.730 et seq., F.S.1975, and State Farm’s policy insuring an automobile owned by appellant’s father, in whose household she lived. While driving her father’s car, appellant was injured in an accident.
The trial court held that § 627.736(4) (d)3, F.S. 1975, disentitles appellant to benefits under her father’s State Farm policy because áp-pellant was herself “the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required,” i. e., the owner of a vehicle “required to be registered and licensed.” Sec. 627.733(1), F.S.1975. Appellant has no other source of personal injury protection benefits because her estranged husband cancelled the insurance on her automobile. Ms. Tapscott appeals the adverse summary judgment, asserting that her automobile was not one required to have been registered because it had been disabled with clutch and transmission problems for four days prior to her accident.
This -Court confirmed in Staley v. Florida Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 328 So. 2d 241 (Fla.App.1976), that only those motor vehicles which are required by Florida law to be registered are subject to the security requirements of the Automobile Reparations Reform Act. The owners of such vehicles, and those alone, are excluded from the benefits afforded by § 627.-736(4) (d) 3. As Circuit Judge Mason held in Kotich v. Criterion Ins. Co., 38 Fla. Supp. 199 (C.
C. Escambia Co., 1973), there are no registration or security requirements for motor vehicles which are neither operated over the public streets or highways of Florida nor maintained for that purpose. Secs. 320.01(1) (a), 320.02(1), 320.35, F.S.1975.
We agree with Judge Mason that Florida's motor vehicle registration requirements apply to vehicles “maintained” for operation on Florida’s public streets and highways. Sec. 320.-02(1), F.S.1975; Kotich, supra, 38 Fla. Supp. at 202. It follows that a vehicle previously required to be registered is excused from registration requirements, and its owner is correspondingly excused from the security requirements of § 627.733(1), when the owner no longer “maintains” the vehicle in order to operate it on public streets and highways.
Although the Tapscott automobile was temporarily inoperable and in need of repair, there was no claim in this case, nor any basis for appellant claiming, that she had abandoned her automobile as a means of transportation on public streets and highways. The insurance on her car was cancelled for reasons unconnected with its inoperability. The car was inoperable for only four days before her injury, and neither in that period nor afterward did appellant evidence an intention no longer to maintain her automobile for its usual purpose. After recovery from her injuries, appellant repaired and reinsured her car. Because appellant owned a motor vehicle for which security was required by § 627.-733(1), F.S.1975, the Act required that appellant provide her own personal injury protection benefits insurance. The summary judgment entered for State Farm is
AFFIRMED.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SWIGERT, WILLIAM T., Sr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Tavares v. Allstate Ins. Co., 342 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)….1976); Section 320.02, Florida Statutes (1975); Williams v. Leatherby Insurance Company, 338 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Staley v. Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Co., 328 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Tapscott v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 330 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Kotich v. Criterion Insurance Company, 38 Fla.Supp. 199 (1st Cir.Ct. 1973). The order dismissing the petition for declaratory judgment relief is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this…
-
Ward v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. & Allstate Ins. Co., 375 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ld not have been a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under the act . .”. (Emphasis supplied ) (Opinion, page 243). However, appellee urges that this court’s later decision in Tapscott v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 330 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) compels a conclusion favorable to it in the case at bar. In Tap-scott, a summary judgment for the insurer was affirmed where plaintiff’s uninsured vehicle became “temporarily inoperable” with clutch and transmission problems for…
-
Malen v. Am. States Ins. Co., 376 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…n’s vehicle was one required to be insured at the time of his accident is dependent upon whether the vehicle was being “maintained” for operation over the public streets or highways of Florida. Tapscott v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 330 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In Ward v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 375 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), Opinion filed October 17, 1979, LL-274, we held that an automobile which had been disabled and left unrepaired due to lack of financi…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Odell Staley v. Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 328 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Kotich v. Criterion Ins. Co., 38 Fla. Supp. 199 (Escambia Cty. Cir. Ct. 1973)