11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 302a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Passenger injured in rental vehicle — Where coverage under driver’s PIP policy extends only to insured or any relative injured while occupying motor vehicle or any other person injured while occupying a covered vehicle owned by insured, non-relative passenger injured while occupying rental vehicle is not entitled to PIP benefits under policy — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of self-insured car rental company on basis that PIP insurer, not rental company, is responsible to provide PIP benefits to passenger
PROGRESSIVE CONSUMER INS CO., Appellant, vs. MARIO DELVA, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 03-289 AP. L.T. Case No. 01-08402 CC05. February 17, 2004. An appeal from the County Court, Miami-Dade County, Leo Adderly, Judge. Counsel: Douglas H. Stein and J. Keith Ramsey, for Appellant. Jaime J. Baca and Arlene Esquenazi, for Appellee.
(Before ROSA RODRIGUEZ, DAVID YOUNG, and BERTILA SOTO, JJ.)
(BERTILA SOTO, J.) This is an appeal from an order granting Enterprise Leasing Company’s, co-defendant below, Motion for Final Summary Judgement entered by the county court on May 2, 2003.
This case arises out of an auto accident wherein Mario Delva was a passenger in a vehicle rented by George Carmenate from Enterprise Leasing Company. The passenger, Mario Delva has claimed injuries as a result of the accident. Mr. Delva at the time of the accident did not own a motor vehicle nor did he reside with a relative who was an owner of a motor vehicle. The driver, George Carmenate, at the time of incident was covered under a Progressive policy for PIP benefits. Enterprise is self insured for PIP coverage.
The passenger, Mario Delva sought out PIP benefits from either Progressive or Enterprise and was denied benefits by both. She filed suit seeking benefits from either Progressive or Enterprise. Both Defendants filed summary judgement motions. Enterprise’s summary judgement motion was granted. Progressive then timely filed an appeal.
Progressive argues that although the primary coverage shifted, pursuant to § 627.7263 Fla. Stat., to Progressive for the driver of the rented vehicle it did not shift to the injured passenger as the accident did not take place in a vehicle owned by the driver George Carmenate. Moreover, Progressive argues that § 627.7263 Fla. Stat. does not change the language of the Progressive’s policy or otherwise extend PIP coverage beyond the policy so as to cover the non-relative passenger. We agree with Progressives’ arguments.
PIP coverage under the Policy extends only to an “insured person.” An “insured person” is defined as either: (a) the insured or any relative injured while occupying a motor vehicle or; (b) any other person injured while occupying a covered vehicle. Here, as a non-relative, the Passenger can only recover if he was injured while occupying a “covered vehicle.” Under the Policy, “covered vehicle” is defined as a vehicle owned by the insured. The vehicle involved in the instant accident was not owned by Progressive’s insured and, therefore, does not meet the definition of a “covered vehicle.” Because the non-relative Passenger was not injured while occupying a “covered vehicle,” he is not an “insured person” under the Policy, and is not entitled to PIP benefits thereunder. See, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Thus, the trial court erred in entering a Final Summary Judgment in favor of Enterprise on the basis that it is Progressive, and not Enterprise, which is responsible to provide PIP benefits to the Passenger. Therefore, as a matter of law, the Passenger is not entitled to PIP benefits under the plain and unambiguous language of Progressive’s Policy.
REVERSED AND REMANDED. (ROSA RODRIGUEZ and DAVID YOUNG, JJ. CONCUR.)
* * *
