STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
FLOYD DALE KILBREATH ET AL., RESPONDENTS-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.
State Farm sought to reverse a summary judgment awarding the Kilbreaths $20,000 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from four separate automobile insurance policies. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Florida law and the insurance policies limited PIP benefits to a single $5,000 cap per person regardless of the number of policies issued.
The court held that personal injury protection benefits are limited to $5,000 per person, not per policy. Florida Statute § 627.736 (1971) and the insurance policy provisions unambiguously limit PIP benefits to $5,000 regardless of the number of policies issued or automobiles insured.
[1] Personal injury protection benefits are limited to $5,000.00 per person, regardless of the number of policies or vehicles insured.
[2] Administrative regulations promulgated pursuant to statutory mandate are entitled to great weight in statutory construction.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1971) provides for a limitation of $5,000.00 on personal injury protection benefits, notwithstanding the number of automobiles insured or policies issued.”
Establishes the statutory foundation for the $5,000 per person limitation regardless of policy count
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Kilbreath held four separate automobile insurance policies with State Farm, each providing personal injury protection benefits. His son was injure…
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 Administrative Regulation Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
Our opinion of March 14, 1978 is hereby withdrawn. Upon reconsideration this court is of the opinion that the final judgment of the trial court should be reversed.
The Kilbreaths, father and son, instituted the present action to collect personal injury protection benefits from multiple insurance policies, after the younger Kilbreath was injured in an automobile accident in 1972. At the time, Mr. Kilbreath, the father, had four separate policies of automobile insurance with State Farm, each of which pro-, vided personal injury protection benefits. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the Kilbreaths holding that State Farm was responsible for $5,000.00 on each policy for a total of $20,-000.00 of coverage.
The policies of insurance involved herein specifically provided for a $5,000.00 cap per person for personal injury protection benefits regardless of the number of persons or vehicles insured or policies involved.
Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1971) provides for a limitation of $5,000.00 on personal injury protection benefits, notwithstanding the number of automobiles insured or policies issued. Travelers Indemnity Company v. Wolfson, 348 So. 2d 661 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Chappelear v. Allstate Insurance Company, 347 So. 2d 477 (Fla.1st DCA 1977); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Castaneda, 339 So. 2d 679 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).
Rule 4-27.06 was promulgated by the Florida Department of Insurance pursuant to the mandate contained in § 627.-741(1), Florida Statutes (1971) and provides:
4r-27.06 Extent of insurer’s liability. As to the extent of an insurer’s liability as referred to in Sections 7(1), 8(1) and 8(2) of Chapter 71-252, Laws of Florida, an insurer liable to pay Personal Injury Protection Benefits under two or more policies to any one person shall be subject to a maximum as specified in Subsection 1 of Section 7 and tort exemption shall likewise be subject to a maximum as specified in Section 8.
Although not controlling, the construction placed on a statute by an administrative body charged with the responsibility for its enforcement is entitled to great weight. United States Gypsum Co. v. Green, 110 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1959); State v. Massachusetts Company, 95 So. 2d 902 (Fla.1956).
In our opinion, the legislation, the policy provisions and the regulations are all unambiguous in limiting the personal injury protection benefits involved herein to $5,000.00. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. This court’s order of March 7, 1978 granting the motion for attorney’s fees filed by appellees is hereby withdrawn and the motion for attorney’s fees is denied.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
CROSS, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
CROSS, Judge,
concurring specially:
On the points raised on appeal by the briefs and oral argument of counsel for the respective parties, I must concur in the majority opinion.
However, in my mind substantive constitutional questions are posed by a formulation of law that requires the citizens of this state to purchase multiple policies of personal injury protection (P.I.P.) insurance on which they are then forbidden to collect.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hall, 409 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…rst National Bank v. Dunn, 85 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1956); ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 397 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1st DCA 1981); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Kilbreath, 362 So. 2d 474 (Fla.4th DCA 1978). The Commission’s construction of its own rule is not clearly erroneous. The purpose and legislative intent of allowing aggrieved employees attorney’s fees and other costs under Section 110.309(5), supra, is to place them on pari…
-
Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sallie J. Braddy, 363 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…l injury protection (P.I.P.) insurance benefits from appellant after appellee had already collected $5,000 in P.I.P. benefits from another insurance company. Section 627.-736(4)(e), Fla.Stat.; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Kilbreath, 362 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. CROSS and BERANEK, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Gorman, 404 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…. DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . The limit in the Fireman’s Fund policy is listed as $5,000; however, the insurance company stipulated that the limit had been increased to $10,000. . See also Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kil-breath, 362 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Wolf son, 348 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States Gypsum Co. v. Green, 110 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1959)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Castaneda, 339 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- State v. The Mass. Co., 95 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1956)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Wolfson, 348 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Paul Chappelear and his wife v. Allstate Ins. Co., 347 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)