DIANA DOUGLAS, APPELLANT,
v.
IOWA NATIONAL MUTUAL 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.
The court affirmed the trial judge's decision on an issue already decided in prior First District cases, but certified a conflict with other district courts regarding whether PIP benefits must be set off against uninsured motorist coverage when no duplication of benefits occurs.
Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes requires set-off of PIP benefits against uninsured motorist coverage even when the uninsured motorist claim seeks no duplicate benefits.
[1] Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes requires set-off of personal injury protection benefits against uninsured motorist coverage regardless of whether the uninsured motor…
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 intelligenceDiana Douglas appealed a trial court decision regarding the relationship between personal injury protection (PIP) benefits and uninsured motorist cove…
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 Certification Of Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
We find that the issue presented by the appellant in this case has already been decided by this Court in Carter v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 377 So. 2d 242, cert. denied 389 So. 2d 1108 (Fla.1980), and Finnocchio v. U.S. Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 389 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and must affirm the trial judge on that basis. Pursuant to Article V, § 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution (1980), however, we certify that this decision is in direct conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Bergman, 387 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) and the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in American Service Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 323 So. 2d 645 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Consequently, we ask the Florida Supreme Court to consider the following question:
Whether § 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1978) requires that an insurer’s payment of personal injury protection benefits be set-off against the insurer’s uninsured (or underinsured) motorist coverage when the insured’s uninsured motorist claim does not seek recovery of any of the type of benefits which would duplicate the benefits provided under personal injury protection.
MILLS, C. J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., (Retired) Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gerhard S. Bergman, 387 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Carter v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. & Eual T. Berry, 377 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Werner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 323 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Finocchio v. U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 389 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)