Conwell v. South Carolina Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Conwell v. South Carolina Insurance Co.

528 So. 2d 920, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1435, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2527, 1988 WL 60478

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 17, 1988

DocketCase No. 87-2834

StatusPublished

This text of 528 So. 2d 920 (Conwell v. South Carolina Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conwell v. South Carolina Insurance Co., 528 So. 2d 920, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1435, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2527, 1988 WL 60478 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary judgment denying plaintiff PIP coverage.

Plaintiff was working for a sign company which owned a flatbed truck to which was permanently affixed a hydraulic ladder. He and a sign were lifted up the hydraulic ladder in connection with the installation of the sign. As he was standing on the ladder holding the sign in place against a portion of the wall where the sign was to be affixed, a gust of wind knocked him off the ladder onto the ground, injuring him. The truck was stationary at the time of the accident.

Plaintiff contends that PIP coverage was required because his loss was from injuries “arising out of the ... use of a motor vehicle” within the meaning of section 627.-736(1), Florida Statutes (1985), “while occupying the owner’s motor vehicle” within the meaning of section 627.736(4)(d)4. We agree. Notwithstanding the well-presented argument on behalf of appellee, we conclude that the legislature meant to require PIP coverage pursuant to those provisions under circumstances like those in this case.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary judgment denying plaintiff PIP coverage.

Plaintiff was working for a sign company which owned a flatbed truck to which was permanently affixed a hydraulic ladder. He and a sign were lifted up the hydraulic ladder in connection with the installation of the sign. As he was standing on the ladder holding the sign in place against a portion of the wall where the sign was to be affixed, a gust of wind knocked him off the ladder onto the ground, injuring him. The truck was stationary at the time of the accident.

Plaintiff contends that PIP coverage was required because his loss was from injuries “arising out of the ... use of a motor vehicle” within the meaning of section 627.-736(1), Florida Statutes (1985), “while occupying the owner’s motor vehicle” within the meaning of section 627.736(4)(d)4. We agree. Notwithstanding the well-presented argument on behalf of appellee, we conclude that the legislature meant to require PIP coverage pursuant to those provisions under circumstances like those in this case.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 So. 2d 920, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1435, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2527, 1988 WL 60478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conwell-v-south-carolina-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1988.