Echevarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Echevarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

447 So. 2d 1014, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12569

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1734

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 447 So. 2d 1014 (Echevarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile 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

Echevarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 447 So. 2d 1014, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12569 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

We adhere to the holding of Johnson v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 365 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) that the exclusion of a non-owner of a vehicle from the personal injury protection coverage of the owner’s carrier which arises under Sec. 627.736(4)(d)4 b., Fla.Stat. (1981)¹ when she is “entitled to personal injury benefits from the insurer of the owner ... of ... another] motor vehicle” is not affected by the fact that the latter 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 the impropriety of the deductible itself is properly directed against her own p.i.p. carrier under Industrial Fire & Casualty Co. v. Kwechin, 447 So.2d 1337 (Fla.1983)² rather than the present insurer.

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

We adhere to the holding of Johnson v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 365 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) that the exclusion of a non-owner of a vehicle from the personal injury protection coverage of the owner’s carrier which arises under Sec. 627.736(4)(d)4 b., Fla.Stat. (1981)¹ when she is “entitled to personal injury benefits from the insurer of the owner ... of ... another] motor vehicle” is not affected by the fact that the latter 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 the impropriety of the deductible itself is properly directed against her own p.i.p. carrier under Industrial Fire & Casualty Co. v. Kwechin, 447 So.2d 1337 (Fla.1983)² rather than the present insurer.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 So. 2d 1014, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/echevarria-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack