14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 98b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Material misrepresentation on application — Signature on non-business use statement — Insured did not, as matter of law, drive her vehicle for business use, delivery, or for a commercial purpose where she worked as nurse’s assistant who traveled to her patients’ residences to care for them, but did not transport patients in her vehicle
JEFFREY L. STANGER, P.A. d/b/a STANGER HEALTH CARE CENTERS, INC., (Patient: Immacula Edmond), Plaintiff, vs. VESTA FIRE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Civil Division. Case No. COCE 03-023773 (54). October 24, 2006. Lisa Trachman, Judge. Counsel: Matthew D. Bavaro, Personal Injury Trial Group, LLC, Fort Lauderdale. Alicia Lyons-Laufer, Rubinton & Laufer, LLC, Hollywood.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, and the court having heard arguments of counsel, reviewing the court file, the motion and attachments, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED.
2. The parties have stipulated that the only issue for the court to resolve is the issue of the claimant’s material misrepresentation in her claim for Personal Injury Protection benefits.
3. Defendant claims that Immacula Edmond committed material misrepresentation when she signed the “NON-BUSINESS USE STATEMENT” on the application for insurance. The statement is as follows:
I hereby state that each vehicle listed on this application, and any vehicle endorsed onto my policy at a later date, are not and will not, be used for delivery, business, or commercial purposes, other than commuting to and from work locations. During the policy term, if I begin using my vehicle for business, I will notify the Company in writing so that my private passenger automobile insurance policy can be cancelled. Failure to provide this notice, (sic) will result in my insurance policy coverage being void or voidable.
4. Pursuant to the testimony of Joseph Crescio, Defendant’s representative, the terms “business use” and “commercial purpose” are not defined in the policy or in the underwriting guidelines.
5. The undisputed facts are that the claimant, Immacula Edmond is a nurse’s assistant who travels to her patients’ residences to care for them. She does not use her vehicle to transport the patients.
6. There is no evidence that since the policy inception Ms. Edmond did anything for her employment other than driving to and from her work locations.
7. As there is no dispute of material fact, the court must determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief as a matter of law.
8. The courts finds that as a matter of law, Ms. Edmond did not drive her vehicle for business use, delivery, or for a commercial purpose. A person is entitled drive to and from work without that fact being considered any sort of business use. See Caballero v. Oak Casualty Ins. Co., 2 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 578c.
9. Ms. Edmond did not commit any type of material misrepresentation in connection with the policy of insurance.
10. Therefore, Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is entitled to a final judgment for the amount of damages alleged in the complaint.
11. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined at a later date.
