Hinton v. Benson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hinton v. Benson

898 So. 2d 967, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1610, 2005 WL 357585

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-354

StatusPublished

This text of 898 So. 2d 967 (Hinton v. Benson) 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

Hinton v. Benson, 898 So. 2d 967, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1610, 2005 WL 357585 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the plaintiffs that based on Sierra v. A Betterway Rent-A-Car, [968]*968Inc., 863 So.2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), the trial court incorrectly found that North Carolina, not Florida, has a “more significant relationship ... to the occurrence and the parties .... ” Sierra, 863 So.2d at 361 (citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict Laws § 146 (1971)). Our conclusion is based primarily on the fact that the renter of vehicle notified Enterprise Leasing Company Southeast (“Enterprise”) that the vehicle would be operated in Florida; Enterprise consented to the operation of the vehicle in Florida; Enterprise advertised that it was part of a global system of rental agencies; and the rental agreement specifically provided that Enterprise’s “financial responsibility is expressly limited to those applicable provisions of the motor vehicle financial responsibility laws of the state in which the vehicle is operated.” Finally, as in Sierra, to the extent that this opinion may be in conflict with Deemer v. Budget Rentr-A-Car Systems, Inc., 704 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we certify conflict.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the plaintiffs that based on Sierra v. A Betterway Rent-A-Car, [968]*968Inc., 863 So.2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), the trial court incorrectly found that North Carolina, not Florida, has a “more significant relationship ... to the occurrence and the parties .... ” Sierra, 863 So.2d at 361 (citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict Laws § 146 (1971)). Our conclusion is based primarily on the fact that the renter of vehicle notified Enterprise Leasing Company Southeast (“Enterprise”) that the vehicle would be operated in Florida; Enterprise consented to the operation of the vehicle in Florida; Enterprise advertised that it was part of a global system of rental agencies; and the rental agreement specifically provided that Enterprise’s “financial responsibility is expressly limited to those applicable provisions of the motor vehicle financial responsibility laws of the state in which the vehicle is operated.” Finally, as in Sierra, to the extent that this opinion may be in conflict with Deemer v. Budget Rentr-A-Car Systems, Inc., 704 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we certify conflict.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

898 So. 2d 967, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1610, 2005 WL 357585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinton-v-benson-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack