Hertz Corp. v. Catoe

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hertz Corp. v. Catoe

697 So. 2d 561, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7859, 1997 WL 386033

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 11, 1997

DocketNo. 96-4776

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 697 So. 2d 561 (Hertz Corp. v. Catoe) 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

Hertz Corp. v. Catoe, 697 So. 2d 561, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7859, 1997 WL 386033 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee, the plaintiff below (the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment), determining that appellant, the defendant below, Hertz, had agreed to provide uninsured motorist coverage by virtue of the following language in the applicable lease agreement:

Coverage includes mandatory no-fault benefits and uninsured motorist coverage, but only to the extent and minimum limits as required by law in the jurisdiction where the accident in question occurs.

Florida law “does not require self-insured automobile leasing companies to offer uninsured motorist coverage to its lessees for leases that are less than one year in duration.” See Diversified Services, Inc. v. Avila, 606 So.2d 364 (Fla.1992). It is undisputed that the lease in this case was for less than one year. Therefore, the summary judgment is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to enter summary judgment for appellant.

JOANOS, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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