13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1076a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Claimant who failed to maintain insurance on own vehicle — Inoperable vehicle — Vehicle with dead battery and flat tire which claimant eventually repaired himself was not inoperable on date of loss — Claimant’s failure to operate vehicle does not relinquish statutory requirement to maintain security for vehicle
ELISHA REIDY, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 50 2006 CC 003309 XXXXSB RD. August 10, 2006. Debra Moses Stephens, Judge. Counsel: Nina Dubey, Bernstein, Chackman & Liss, Hollywood. Leonard P. Haberman.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on July 12th, 2006 upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having heard argument of counsel for both parties, and being otherwise fully advised on the premises, the Court finds as follows:FACTS
Elisha Reidy has brought suit for allegedly overdue personal injury protection benefits for services rendered as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about August 31, 2005 and pursuant to a contract of insurance between Falecia Robinson and Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company. Falecia Robinson is the only named insured under the policy of insurance with Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company which lists Elisha Reidy as a household driver who is not related to the insured. Under Endorsement FL600A entitled “Florida Personal Injury Protection” attached to the policy of insurance issued by Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company, the policy states specifically, “this insurance does not apply:
(f) to any person other than you if such person is the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law.”
Mr. Elisha Reidy testified at his Examination Under Oath to being the registered owner of a Volkswagen Jetta which had been insured by Security National Insurance Company effective November 30, 2004. On the date of loss, August 31, 2005, Mr. Reidy’s policy of insurance with Security National Insurance Company had not been renewed and this vehicle remained uninsured. Plaintiff alleged that said vehicle was inoperable on the date of loss due to a dead battery and a flat tire and argued he should be covered under the policy of insurance issued to Falecia Robinson. Plaintiff admits that during this time, he did not keep his vehicle in storage, but rather allowed it to remain in the driveway of his home. Plaintiff also testified that he had not operated the car for between 3-5 months prior to the motor vehicle accident and he had no personal intention of operating the car on the streets.
ANALYSIS
Florida Statute §627.736(4)(d) requires an insurer to pay PIP benefits to certain persons occupying an owner’s vehicle provided such persons do not own unprotected motor vehicles for which security is compelled. The same exclusion is reiterated in Metropolitan’s policy of insurance under Endorsement FL600A entitled “Florida Personal Injury Protection.” Plaintiff argued that no such security was required for the Volkswagen Jetta because at the time of the accident, said vehicle was inoperable due to its dead battery.
A vehicle requiring only minor repairs is not considered inoperable pursuant to Florida law under the authority of Bedgood v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 384 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The First District Court of Appeals in Bedgood stated specifically, “the mere inoperability of the vehicle does not satisfy the test” of whether the vehicle was required to be secured. See Id. at 1366. Other pertinent questions include the length of time of the automobile’s inoperability before the accident, the extent of the vehicle’s inoperability, whether it was placed in storage prior to its restoration to operability, and the subjective element of whether the owner intended to maintain the vehicle on the public streets. See Id. According to Mr. Reidy, the only problems with the Volkswagen Jetta were the dead battery and flat tire, which Mr. Reidy eventually repaired himself. Counsel for Mr. Reidy admits a flat tire alone would not render the vehicle inoperable.
There is clear and convincing evidence that the Volkswagen was operable pursuant to the Bedgood test on the date of the accident. First, but for the dead battery, the vehicle was otherwise operable on the date of the accident in question. According to Mr. Reidy, the problem with the Volkswagen Jetta occurred approximately in June or July of 2005 and was repaired by November of 2005 at the latest. This is a minor repair as stated by the First District Court of Appeals in Bedgood. Counsel for Plaintiff cited Fortune Ins. Co. v. Oehme, 453 So.2d 920 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) for the proposition that a repair as minor as repairing a clutch would render a vehicle inoperable where the owner has subjectively decided not to repair it. This court finds that the Fortune case is distinguishable because the owner in that case had lost his driving privilege, the vehicle was not driven for over a year and the repair of a clutch requires more knowledge in the area of mechanics than the replacement of a battery. This court finds that the replacement of a dead battery is akin to refilling the gas tank in a motor vehicle.
Mr. Reidy admits he did not place this vehicle in storage prior to restoring it to operability, but rather allowed the vehicle to remain in the driveway of his residence, though he did not intend to operate it. Counsel pointed this court to claimant’s testimony that the car sat for so long that birds had defecated on it.
Mr. Reidy’s failure to operate the vehicle does not relinquish a statutory requirement for him to maintain security for the vehicle. Therefore, when Mr. Reidy failed to maintain security over the vehicle which was legally operable on the date of loss, he was then legally excluded from any sort of coverage under the policy of insurance maintained by Falecia Robinson as well as the Florida No-Fault Law.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff, is not entitled to personal injury protection benefits arising out of a policy of insurance issued to Falecia Robinson because Mr. Reidy was the registered owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law. Mr. Reidy’s Volkswagen Jetta clearly constitutes a vehicle requiring such security. As a result, summary judgment is proper in favor of the Defendant, Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company as there exists no material issue of fact.
It is therefore:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
The Defendant, Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Final Judgment in favor of Defendant is hereby entered.
* * *
