MERCEDES CASTILLO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 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.
Plaintiff cannot recover under an uninsured motorist provision when the tortfeasor is tort-exempt under Florida's No Fault Act because the insured has no legal right to recover from the tortfeasor.
A plaintiff has no cause of action under an uninsured motorist provision when the tortfeasor is tort-exempt under Florida's No Fault Act, because the insured is not legally entitled to recover from the tortfeasor.
[1] Under Florida's No Fault Act, when a tortfeasor is tort-exempt due to minimal damages, an uninsured motorist provision does not provide coverage because the insured has n…
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 intelligenceMercedes Castillo was a passenger in a car owned by Maria Sierra that collided with a car owned by Iluminada Marrero. Marrero's No Fault insurance car…
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 Uninsured Motorist Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
Plaintiff, Mercedes Castillo, appeals from a judgment on the pleadings for defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
The automobiles owned by Maria Sierra and Iluminada Marrero collided. Plaintiff was a passenger in the Sierra car. Mar-rero’s No Fault (Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act) insurance carrier, Gateway Insurance Company, became insolvent. Plaintiff, Castillo, brought suit for a declaratory judgment against Sierra’s insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, seeking to recover damages for bodily injury under the uninsured motorist provision in Sierra’s policy.
State Farm denied coverage on the basis that the insurance policy provides that State Farm is only required to pay such sums as the insured (Sierra) “shall be legally entitled to recover” from the uninsured motorist (Marrero).
Plaintiff having admittedly suffered no permanent injury, and her medical expenses having been less than $1,000, Marrero is “tort exempt” under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act. § 627.737, Fla.Stat. We have considered this fact in the light of the uninsured motorist provision mentioned above, and we hold, therefore, that the plaintiff has no cause of action for bodily injury against State Farm. Accordingly, the judgment on the pleadings in favor of State Farm is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raymond v. Zumstorchen Inv., Ltd., 488 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…and an intent to induce reliance. See, e.g., Peninsular Florida District Council of Assemblies of God v. Pan American Investment and Development Corp., 450 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also American [*846] International Land Corp. v. Hanna, 328 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1975). Raymond claimed that as a result of its reliance on Alexander and Schwartz’s statements and omissions of material fact, it bought the securities. Later, it suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 when forced to sell those securities on th…
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nivia Sarduy, 410 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Florida Farm Bureau v. Quinones, 409 So. 2d 97, (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Castillo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 328 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).…