Morse v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morse v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

328 So. 2d 542, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14911

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 2, 1976

DocketNo. 75-571

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 328 So. 2d 542 (Morse v. State Farm Mutual Automobile 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

Morse v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 328 So. 2d 542, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14911 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff suffered a final judgment dismissing his complaint which claimed personal injury protection benefits pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 627.736. On this appeal, the single point presented urges that: “the absolute statutory denial of personal injury protection benefits to motorcycle riders deprives them of due process and equal protection of the law.” The point was not raised on the record before us. Plaintiff urges that we consider the application of the exemption set forth in Fla.Stat. § 627.-736(l)¹ as fundamental error. See F.A.R. 3-7(i).

We have considered the record in the light of the briefs and oral argument and we hold that fundamental error has not been demonstrated. The Supreme Court of Florida thoroughly examined the act in question in Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company, Fla. 1974, 296 So.2d 9, and held that with the exception of the property damage limitation of access to the courts, the personal injury aspects of the act were valid and constitutional. In this connection, we note that the Supreme Court specifically held that the exclusion of taxis, motorcycles, buses and commercial vehicles was not an arbitrary or capricious classification and thus does not violate the equal protection provision. See Lasky, supra, at 22.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff suffered a final judgment dismissing his complaint which claimed personal injury protection benefits pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 627.736. On this appeal, the single point presented urges that: “the absolute statutory denial of personal injury protection benefits to motorcycle riders deprives them of due process and equal protection of the law.” The point was not raised on the record before us. Plaintiff urges that we consider the application of the exemption set forth in Fla.Stat. § 627.-736(l)¹ as fundamental error. See F.A.R. 3-7(i).

We have considered the record in the light of the briefs and oral argument and we hold that fundamental error has not been demonstrated. The Supreme Court of Florida thoroughly examined the act in question in Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company, Fla. 1974, 296 So.2d 9, and held that with the exception of the property damage limitation of access to the courts, the personal injury aspects of the act were valid and constitutional. In this connection, we note that the Supreme Court specifically held that the exclusion of taxis, motorcycles, buses and commercial vehicles was not an arbitrary or capricious classification and thus does not violate the equal protection provision. See Lasky, supra, at 22.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 So. 2d 542, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morse-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack