Lewis v. Allstate Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lewis v. Allstate Insurance

425 So. 2d 100, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21991

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 22, 1982

DocketNo. AK-156

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 425 So. 2d 100 (Lewis v. Allstate Insurance) 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

Lewis v. Allstate Insurance, 425 So. 2d 100, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21991 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a summary judgment which determined that he is not entitled to payment of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under a contract of insurance between appellant’s uncle and appellee. Appellant is a resident in his uncle’s household and sustained injury when a truck collided with a county-owned bus in which appellant was a passenger. While the insurance contract involved in this case excludes coverage for injuries sustained in a vehicle “for hire,” the contract will nevertheless be enforced as if it were in compliance with Florida’s Automobile Reparations Reform Act, irrespective of the contract’s actual terms. See § 627.733(3)(a), Florida Statutes; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Chapman, 415 So.2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Section 627.-736(4)(d)3, Florida Statutes, requires payment of PIP- benefits in the circumstances of the present case. Section 627.734, Florida Statutes, relating to “Security Requirements,” merely exempts governmental entities from the required provisions of such benefits, and does not affect the obligations of private parties as are involved in the present case. See Chapman. We therefore conclude that, pursuant to § 627.736(4)(d)3, Florida Statutes, the insurance contract between appellant’s uncle and appellee affords coverage for the injury sustained by appellant as a passenger on the county-owned bus.

Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed.

McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a summary judgment which determined that he is not entitled to payment of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under a contract of insurance between appellant’s uncle and appellee. Appellant is a resident in his uncle’s household and sustained injury when a truck collided with a county-owned bus in which appellant was a passenger. While the insurance contract involved in this case excludes coverage for injuries sustained in a vehicle “for hire,” the contract will nevertheless be enforced as if it were in compliance with Florida’s Automobile Reparations Reform Act, irrespective of the contract’s actual terms. See § 627.733(3)(a), Florida Statutes; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Chapman, 415 So.2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Section 627.-736(4)(d)3, Florida Statutes, requires payment of PIP- benefits in the circumstances of the present case. Section 627.734, Florida Statutes, relating to “Security Requirements,” merely exempts governmental entities from the required provisions of such benefits, and does not affect the obligations of private parties as are involved in the present case. See Chapman. We therefore conclude that, pursuant to § 627.736(4)(d)3, Florida Statutes, the insurance contract between appellant’s uncle and appellee affords coverage for the injury sustained by appellant as a passenger on the county-owned bus.

Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed.

McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 So. 2d 100, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-allstate-insurance-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack