11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 344b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — PIP policy does not afford coverage to plaintiff who was not named insured under policy or resident relative of named insureds but was named as “listed driver” on declarations page of policy, and who was owner of vehicle registered in state for which PIP coverage was mandated — Summary judgment entered in favor of insurer
MAURICE STEWART, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 03-09036 CC (25). February 6, 2004. Mercedes Bach, Judge. Counsel: Jonathan G. Liss, Bernstein, Chackman, Bronstein & Liss, Hollywood. Kelsay D. Patterson.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
THIS CAUSE, having come before the court upon due notice on January 21, 2004, on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Declaratory Judgment and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the court having reviewed the legal memoranda filed by the parties, having heard oral argument of counsel, having reviewed all affidavits and/or documents on file, and being otherwise advised in the premises, herein finds as follows:
1. Plaintiff Maurice Stewart’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Declaratory Judgment is hereby denied.
2. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf the Defendant Progressive Express Insurance Company (improperly named) is herein granted.
3. The court hereby enters Final Judgment in favor of the Defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, and against Plaintiff, Maurice Stewart, and finds that the Plaintiff shall take nothing by this action, and the Defendant shall go hence without day.
4. The court reserves jurisdiction to tax any applicable costs, and/or attorneys’ fees, upon proper notice and/or motion.
5. The court finds that based upon the record evidence that Plaintiff, Maurice Stewart, was involved in a motor vehicle accident occurring on August 31, 2002. At the time of the accident, Mr. Stewart was driving a 2001 Ford Expedition owned and registered to the named insureds under the Progressive policy, Ruben Turner and Anita Turner. Based upon the undisputed facts before this court, Mr. Stewart was not a named insured under this policy, nor was he a resident relative of the Turners, although he was named as a “listed driver,” on the declarations page issued by Progressive Express Insurance Company.
6. At the time of the accident that is the subject matter of this case, based upon the undisputed facts, Mr. Stewart was the owner of a certain 1988 Isuzu, which was registered in the State of Florida on the date of the accident, for which PIP coverage was required, and said PIP coverage was required to apply to the owner of said motor vehicle, to wit: Maurice Stewart.
7. In accordance with both the policy terms, as well as Florida Statutes, the Progressive policy, in full compliance with the PIP statute, does not afford coverage to Mr. Stewart, as Mr. Stewart was the owner of a vehicle registered in the State of Florida, for which PIP coverage was mandated.
8. As a result of the foregoing analysis, the Progressive policy in question does not afford coverage for the claims of Maurice Stewart for no-fault benefits, as alleged in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
* * *
