SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MARION HOWGATE AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Security Insurance Company appeals from summary judgment holding it primarily liable for no-fault personal injury protection benefits to a non-resident Texas passenger injured in Florida. The court affirmed, finding that because the passenger was not the owner of a Florida-registered motor vehicle subject to Florida's no-fault law, the liability insurer of the vehicle owner bore primary coverage responsibility.
Security Insurance Company must provide primary coverage because Howgate, though a vehicle owner, is not the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under Florida's no-fault law. The statutory exclusion applies only to persons who own Florida-registered motor vehicles subject to Florida's no-fault requirements.
[1] A non-resident passenger injured in Florida, who owns a vehicle insured in another state with similar no-fault benefits, is not excluded from recovering personal injury p…
[2] An insurer's personal injury protection endorsement excluding coverage for persons entitled to benefits from the owner of a motor vehicle not insured under that policy do…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 insurer of the owner of a motor vehicle shall pay personal injury protection benefits for . [accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by any other person while occupying the owner's motor vehicle . . . provided the injured person is not himself: (a) The owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under §§ 627.730-627.741 . . .”
Florida statute establishing the primary coverage obligation of the vehicle owner's insurer and the exclusion for persons who own vehicles subject to Florida's no-fault law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHowgate, a Texas resident with a State Farm automobile insurance policy covering her Texas-owned vehicle, was injured as a passenger in a Florida vehi…
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 Primary Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
In this action for declaratory relief, defendant Security Insurance Company takes these consolidated appeals from an adverse order granting summary judgment, and an order awarding attorneys fees. We are here concerned with the question of recovery of no-fault personal injury protection benefits by a non-resident passenger from the liability carrier of a resident owner when the non-resident passenger had a current automobile insurance policy (providing similar benefits) covering her own vehicle in a state which has no-fault personal injury protection benefits.
The plaintiff, Howgate, appellee herein, filed a complaint for declaratory relief in Dade County Circuit Court, naming as defendants, Security Insurance Company and State Farm Insurance Company. The complaint alleged that Security is a liability and no-fault personal injury protection insurance carrier for Judith Barrett; that State Farm is a liability and personal injury protection insurance carrier for Howgate, a resident of Texas who procured insurance in Texas for her automobile which is owned and operated there; that Howgate was injured in Dade County while riding as a passenger in the automobile owned and operated by Barrett; that Howgate sought payment of medical and other personal injury protection expenses from both Security and State Farm, but that neither assumes legal responsibility; that Howgate wants a judgment naming the policy and carrier which must provide insurance coverage.
When the cause was at issue, Howgate moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment, and ruled that plaintiff be awarded coverage for personal injury protection benefits by both defendants; primary coverage by Security and excess by State Farm. Attorneys fees were awarded to plaintiff against Security.
On appeal, Security contends that the trial court erred in holding it liable for primary coverage where plaintiff was the owner of an automobile in Texas insured under a policy issued by State Farm which contains a provision for “personal injury protection” coverage; and where the “Exclusions” portion of Security’s personal injury protection endorsement provides that, “This insurance does not apply .
[t]o any person . . . 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 . . . ”
Security relies on this court’s decision in Martiniez v. Old Security Casualty Insur ance Company, 327 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), which involved an injured passenger claiming no-fault personal injury protection benefits under the driver-owner’s insurance policy, and held that the passenger was not entitled to personal injury protection benefits under the driver-owner’s policy, but was entitled to such coverage under the policy covering the passenger’s own car, which was not involved in the accident. Martinez is distinguishable on its facts, however, because unlike the plaintiff in the instant case, plaintiff Martinez was the owner of a vehicle subject to the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform (no-fault) Act. As provided in Section 627.736(4)(d),
“The insurer of the owner of a motor vehicle shall pay personal injury protection benefits for . [accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by any other person while occupying the owner’s motor vehicle . . . provided the injured person is not himself:
(a) The owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under §§ 627.730-627.741 . . . ” (emphasis added)
In addition, Section 627.736(4), states that
“Benefits due from an insurer under §§ 627.730-627.741 shall be primary
We find that Howgate is not the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under the Florida no-fault law, and therefore Security Insurance Company has primary coverage under its policy. The orders granting summary final judgment and awarding attorneys fees are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Epperson v. Dixie Ins. Co., 461 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…orida resident is entitled to recover PIP benefits from the owner’s Florida insurer since the Texas resident was not the owner of a vehicle for which insurance was required under the Florida No-Fault Insurance Law. Security Insurance Co. v. Howgate, 343 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). On the other hand, it has been held that a person injured while a passenger in or the driver of an automobile insured under the Florida No-Fault Insurance Law is barred from recovering PIP benefits if he or she is the owner of an…
-
Echevarria v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 447 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…tter policy is subject to a deductible as provided by Sec. 627.739. Farley v. Gateway Ins. Co., 302 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), Protective Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Bergouignan, 335 So. 2d 871 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), and Security Ins. Co. v. Howgate, 343 So. 2d 641 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), upon which the claimant relies, are entirely distinguishable since, unlike the present situation, no valid Florida policy covered the claimant and neither of the statutory exclusions applied. Any claim of the appellant concerning…
Authorities Cited
- Heriberto Martinez v. OLD Sec. Cas. Ins. Co. & Allstate Ins. Co., 327 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)