Heidenstrauch v. Bankers Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Heidenstrauch v. Bankers Insurance Co.

564 So. 2d 581, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5288, 1990 WL 102700

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 25, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1129

StatusPublished

This text of 564 So. 2d 581 (Heidenstrauch v. Bankers 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

Heidenstrauch v. Bankers Insurance Co., 564 So. 2d 581, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5288, 1990 WL 102700 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

Mari Heidenstrauch brings this appeal questioning the constitutionality of section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1983). She argues that allowing deductibles up to $2,000.00 in personal injury protection (PIP) coverages where the insured has no collateral coverage and without making another remedy available to the insured to recover the deductible amount (such as by suit against the exempt tortfeasor) is a denial of access to the courts in violation of article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Our sister court in the third district has recently decided this issue adversely to appellant’s position. Verdecia v. American Risk Assurance Co., 543 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 551 So.2d 464 (Fla.1989). We do not agree with the Verdecía court’s position on standing, but we agree with the holding that the statute is constitutional and we have no quarrel with the rationale behind that holding. Accordingly, we follow Verdecía and affirm.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ„ concur.

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

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

Mari Heidenstrauch brings this appeal questioning the constitutionality of section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1983). She argues that allowing deductibles up to $2,000.00 in personal injury protection (PIP) coverages where the insured has no collateral coverage and without making another remedy available to the insured to recover the deductible amount (such as by suit against the exempt tortfeasor) is a denial of access to the courts in violation of article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Our sister court in the third district has recently decided this issue adversely to appellant’s position. Verdecia v. American Risk Assurance Co., 543 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 551 So.2d 464 (Fla.1989). We do not agree with the Verdecía court’s position on standing, but we agree with the holding that the statute is constitutional and we have no quarrel with the rationale behind that holding. Accordingly, we follow Verdecía and affirm.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 So. 2d 581, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5288, 1990 WL 102700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heidenstrauch-v-bankers-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack