PROTECTIVE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF OMAHA, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN PADRON, 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.
Protective National Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment requiring it to pay personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to a passenger injured in an insured vehicle. The court reverses, holding that under Florida's No Fault Act, PIP coverage under a driver's policy does not extend to a passenger when neither the vehicle owner nor the passenger has their own PIP coverage.
The insurance company is not liable. Under the plain language of the policy and Florida's No Fault Act, PIP coverage does not extend to a passenger absent coverage from either the vehicle owner or the passenger themselves. The injured passenger must look to the owner of the motor vehicle for PIP benefits irrespective of negligence.
[1] An insurance policy's personal injury protection coverage for "any other person" occupying the insured motor vehicle does not extend to a passenger when neither the owner…
[2] The Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act requires the owner of a motor vehicle to carry personal injury protection insurance, not the driver.
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“The issue to be determined is whether the terms of the driver's policy cover the plaintiff-passenger.”
States the central legal question in the appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA passenger was injured while occupying a motor vehicle insured under a No Fault policy issued to the driver. Neither the owner of the motor vehicle n…
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 Exclusion Clause Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
Protective National Insurance Company of Omaha, defendant, appeals an adverse summary final judgment in an action for personal injury protection benefits under its policy of insurance.
The sole issue presented is whether the insurance company is liable for personal injury protection benefits to the plaintiff-passenger under a No Fault policy issued to the driver of a motor vehicle, where the passenger was injured while in the motor vehicle and neither the owner of the motor vehicle nor the passenger had No Fault personal injury protection coverage. The trial court found that the insurance company was liable and entered summary final judgment in favor of the passenger. We reverse.
The issue to be determined is whether the terms of the driver’s policy cover the plaintiff-passenger. Pertinent provisions of the policy are:
“PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION
The Company will pay, in accordance with the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, to or for the benefit of the injured person:
(a) all reasonable medical expenses, and (b) . . .
(c) . . . expenses, incurred as a re-suit of bodily injury, caused by an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle and sustained by:
(1) the named insured or any relative while occupying a motor vehicle or, while a pedestrian, through being struck by a motor vehiclé; or (2) any other person while occupying the insured motor vehicle or, while a pedestrian, through being struck by the insured motor vehicle.
Exclusions
This insurance [Personal Injury Protection] does not apply:
}}C (g) to any person, other than the named insured or any relative, who is entitled to personal injury protection benefits from the owner of a motor vehicle which is not an insured motor vehicle under this insurance or from the owner’s insurer; . . . .”
The passenger contends that the phrase “arising out of . use of a motor vehicle” should be construed so as to grant her coverage. This construction is not supported by the terms of the policy or the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform (No Fault) Act. The phrase appears in paragraph (c) of the personal injury protection provision, but it cannot be extracted and construed on its own. Considering it in the context of the entire provision, paragraphs (a) through (c) including subparagraphs (1) and (2), supra leads us to the conclusion that coverage is not provided for this passenger. The meaning of the provision is that expenses will be paid for bodily injury caused by an accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle and sustained by any other person while occupying the insured motor vehicle. This factual situation does not obtain in the instant case. Our determination of coverage under paragraphs (a) through (c) is further supported by the exclusionary clause hereinabove recited.
The No Fault Act requires that the owner of a motor vehicle have insurance, not the driver. Therefore, the injured passenger, having no insurance of her own, must look to the owner of the motor vehicle for personal injury protection benefits irrespective of negligence.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Julian v. Johnson, 438 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…tor vehicles “registered in this state.” The vehicle here was registered in Massachusetts. The No-Fault Act requires that the owner of the vehicle have insurance coverage, not the driver. See Protective National Insurance Company of Omaha v. Padron, 310 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Section 627.733(2), Florida Statutes (1981), requires that non-resident owners of motor vehicles which have been physically present in the state for more than 90 days during the preceding 365 days shall thereafter maintain securi…