WAYNE MALEN, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN STATES 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.
Wayne Malen sought personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under an insurance policy issued to the owner of the vehicle he was driving when injured. The trial court dismissed his claim, holding he was disqualified because he owned an uninsured motor vehicle. The appellate court reversed, finding his 1964 Mercedes Benz was not being "maintained" for operation and thus was not subject to the insurance requirement that would disqualify him.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that Malen's 1964 Mercedes Benz was not a vehicle being "maintained for operation on the streets and highways" and therefore was not one for which security was required under Section 627.730 et seq., Florida Statutes. Consequently, Malen was not disqualified from receiving PIP benefits based on ownership of an uninsured motor vehicle.
[1] An automobile is not considered "maintained" for operation on public streets or highways, and thus not required to be insured under Florida Statutes sections 627.730-627.…
[2] A vehicle left unrepaired at a repair shop and not operable for an extended period prior to an accident is not subject to the mandatory insurance requirements of Florida…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Whether Malen'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.”
Establishes the legal test for determining whether a vehicle owned by an injured party triggers the disqualification provision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 28, 1976, Malen was injured while driving a vehicle owned by Diane Loos. At that time, Malen was the registered owner of a 1964 Mercedes B…
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 Automobile Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Malen, injured in an accident while driving a vehicle owned by Diane Loos, seeks review of a final judgment dismissing with prejudice his claim against American States Insurance Company for personal injury protection benefits under an automobile insurance policy issued to Diane Loos. The trial court held that Section 627.736(4)(d)4a, Florida Statutes (1975), disentitles Malen to benefits since he was “the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under ss. 627.730-627.741 . . .” We reverse.
At the time of the accident, February 28, 1976, Malen was the registered owner of an uninsured inoperable 1964 Mercedes Benz. Malen had operated this vehicle from the time of purchase in 1974 until November, 1975 when it developed transmission problems and was taken to a repair shop. Because the necessary repairs were determined to be too expensive, the vehicle was left unrepaired at the repair shop and Malen decided to try to sell the vehicle “as is”. The vehicle remained at the shop until May, 1976 when it was sold, repairs not having been made until around that time. Whether Malen’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 financial resources for nearly four months prior to the accident and for which the registration and license had been allowed to lapse due to the vehicle’s inoperability was not one being maintained for operation on the streets and highways. Similarly, we find that Malen’s vehicle was not one being maintained for operation on the streets and highways for which security was required under Section 627.730, et seq., Florida Statutes (1975).
Accordingly, the final judgment dismissing Malen’s claim with prejudice is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 510 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…in actual physical control of a vehicle. In this connection we note that an automobile which is not being used and is not being “maintained” has been held not to be an automobile for insurance purposes. See, e.g., Malen v. American States Ins. Co., 376 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The purpose of the “control” provision in the statute is to deter persons under the influence of alcohol from placing themselves under circumstances where they might become a menace to life and limb. See Cincinnati v. Kelley, 47…
-
Oscar v. Bedgood and Vernon Bedgood, 384 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…. Ins. Co., 328 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Tapscott v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 330 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Ward v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins., 375 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Malen v. American States Insurance Co., 376 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Thus a vehicle previously required to be registered is excused from registration requirements, and its owner correspondingly excused from the security requirements of the Reparations Reform Act “when the owner no longer ‘maintai…
-
Deese v. State, 378 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…r vehicle within the meaning of Sections 627.-730 et seq., when its registration and license had been allowed to lapse due to the vehicle’s inoperability for an extended period of time. To the same effect, see Malen v. American States Insurance Co., 376 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1979). A similar factual pattern is revealed here. In addition to being inoperable, the motorcycle clearly had not been maintained as a motor vehicle since it had been abandoned by its record owner for more than a year before it was r…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tapscott v. State Farm Mut. Auto. INS. Co., 330 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Ward v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. & Allstate Ins. Co., 375 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)