12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 115a
NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 532a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Evidence — Accident report privilege — Error to admit accident report into evidence because report is expressly inadmissible under section 316.066(4) — Even if exception to accident report privilege applied, trial court erred in admitting report without testimony because report of investigation is not admissible under public records and reports hearsay exception — Remand for new trial
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. QUIROPRACTIC & THERAPY CENTER a/a/o PHILOMME CHAVANNES, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 04-068 AP. L.C. Case No. 02-007106 CC-05. November 30, 2004. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Roger A. Silver, Judge. Counsel: Mark A. Gatica, United Automobile Insurance Company, Office of General Counsel, for Petitioner. Neil M. Gonzalez, for Respondent.
(Before LEESFIELD, LOPEZ, and CRESPO, JJ.)
(CRESPO, Judge.) This case is on appeal from a Final Judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Quiropractic & Therapy Center, the medical provider of the insured, Philomme O. Chavannes. This case stems from a personal injury protection (PIP) suit. The appellant/insurer seeks reversal of the court’s denial of the motion for directed verdict. Alternatively, it seeks to have the Final Judgment vacated and the case remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
In this case, the insured was examined by the appellee/medical provider. The insured executed an assignment of his PIP benefits to the provider. The provider subsequently submitted claims for the treatment of the insured. These claims were denied. As a result, the provider filed a complaint for PIP benefits.
Eventually, this matter was set for trial. No witness who was present at the accident was available to testify at the trial. The trial court allowed the provider to enter the accident report into evidence without testimony. At the conclusion of the trial, the court denied appellant’s motion for directed verdict. The jury returned a verdict for the provider. This appeal ensued.
Although appellant/insurer raises several points on appeal, this court wishes to address the question of admissibility of the accident report. The appellant argues that the trial court improperly allowed the provider to offer the accident report into evidence because the report is expressly inadmissible pursuant to Section 316.066(4) of the Florida Statute. In contrast, appellee argues that the report was admissible because statements concerning the location, date, time, and persons involved in the accident are not privileged. Further, these statements are admissible as evidence without testimony because the accident report is a self-authenticating document under Section 90.902(1) and (2).
When addressing accident or crash reports, Section 316.066(4) specifically states that “No such report or statement shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal.” A limited exception to this rule reads as follows: “. . . subject to the rules of evidence, a law enforcement officer at a criminal trial may testify as to any statement made to the officer by the person involved in the crash if that person’s privilege against self-incrimination is not violated.”
It is clearly established law that “[s]tatutes must be given their plain and obvious meaning, and courts should assume that the legislature knew the plain and ordinary meaning of the words when it chose to include them in the statute. ” Hankey v. Yarian, M.D., 755 So. 2d 93, 96 (Fla. 2001). The plain language of Section 316.066(4) states that no crash report or statement shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal. Although there is an exception to this rule, it does not seem to apply to the facts of this case.
However, even if the exception does apply, appellee’s contention that a crash report is a self-authenticating document that may be offered into evidence without testimony is not supported by case law. When examining the issue of whether the accident report can be introduced without testimony, Florida case law reveals that “a record setting forth factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law” is not admissible under the “Public records and reports” hearsay exception, Section 90.803(8) of the Florida Statutes. Lee v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 698 So. 2d 1194, 1201 (Fla. 1997). “In Florida, rather than offering this type of record, a witness must be called who has personal knowledge of the facts.” Id. at 1201; See also S. Lobree v. Caporossi, 139 So.2d 510 (Fla. DCA 1962).
In light of the foregoing, we find that the trial court erred in admitting the accident report. Therefore, we hereby VACATE the Final Judgment and REMAND this case to the trial court for a new trial.
As to appellee’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees, it is hereby DENIED. (LEESFIELD and LOPEZ concur.)
* * *
