PROTECTIVE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF OMAHA, APPELLANT,
v.
BIENVENIDO BERGOUIGNAN AND MARTA BERGOUIGNAN, HIS WIFE, 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.
The court held that the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle is barred from personal injury protection benefits, but his passenger is not.
Plaintiffs, passengers in a vehicle owned by Mario Cuellar, sought personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from Cuellar's insurer. One of the plaint…
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 Personal Injury Protection Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This interlocutory appeal is from a summary judgment as to liability. The plaintiffs, Bienvenido Bergouignan and Marta Bergouignan, claimed personal injury protection benefits from the insurance company of Mario Cuellar. Cuellar was the owner of a vehicle in which the Bergouignans were passengers. Bienvenido Bergouignan owned an uninsured motor vehicle.
The defendant insurance company maintained that both Bienvenido and Marta were barred from personal injury protection benefits because of Bienvenido’s ownership of the uninsured motor vehicle. The trial judge, in his summary judgment, held that neither of the Bergouignans was barred.
On appeal, the insurance company admits the correctness of the trial judge’s holding as to Marta Bergouignan but maintains that Bienvenido is barred pursuant to Pla.Stat. § 627.736. The trial judge was correct as to Marta Bergouignan. See Gateway Insurance Company v. Butler, Fla. App.1974, 293 So. 2d 738. As to Bienvenido Bergouignan, the statute clearly excludes him as the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norval M. GUY v. Jones Earl Kight, Sr., 397 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…der” of the drafts was not accomplished by mailing them. They were received after suit was filed. . See Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 381 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Protective Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Bergouignan, 335 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).…
-
Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Irvana Augustin, 412 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company. Being the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle at the time of the accident, Augus-tin has no right to recover PIP benefits from Industrial. Protective National Insurance Company of Omaha v. Bergouignan, 335 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Staley v. Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 328 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Section 627.736(4)(d)(4), Florida Statutes (1979). Therefore, the final summary judgment rendered in favor of Augustin is reversed, as…
-
Echevarria v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 447 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…... another] motor vehicle” is not affected by the fact that the latter policy is subject to a deductible as provided by Sec. 627.739. Farley v. Gateway Ins. Co., 302 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), Protective Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Bergouignan, 335 So. 2d 871 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), and Security Ins. Co. v. Howgate, 343 So. 2d 641 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), upon which the claimant relies, are entirely distinguishable since, unlike the present situation, no valid Florida policy covered the claimant and neither of the…
Authorities Cited
- Gateway Ins. Co. v. Butler, 293 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)