15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 621a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Uninsured vehicle — Where insured was driving vehicle that was not insured under policy and of which he was owner, insured was not entitled to seek PIP benefits under policy — Summary judgment granted in favor of insurer
DUREVOIR FAUSETTE, Plaintiff, vs. U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 06-05172 CC 05. April 16, 2008. Shelley J. Kravitz, Judge. Counsel: Todd Landau. Alina Palacios-Hart, Hamilton House Counsel, Miami, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the Defendant, U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through its undersigned counsel and moves this Honorable Court for the entry of Final Summary Judgment against the Plaintiff, DUREVOIR FAUSETTE, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 as no genuine issue of material fact exists and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and as grounds therefore states as follows:
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
1. On or about January 25, 2004 DUREVOIR FAUSETTE, (“PLAINTIFF”) was allegedly involved in an automobile accident, and made a claim for PIP benefits with U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY (“U.S. SECURITY”) thereafter.
2. U.S. SECURITY received bills from PLAINTIFF for dates of services February 2, 2004 through and including April 7, 2004, totaling $13,317.00 in amount.
3. DUREVOIR FAUSETTE brought suit for personal injury protection benefits from a policy of insurance issued to his wife Marie Claude Pierre by U.S. SECURITY, for a 1993 Toyota Camry, VIN# 4TISK12E0PU268269.
4. The Plaintiff was not driving the insured vehicle at the time of loss or a passenger in the insured vehicle at the time of loss, but was driving a Ford Crown Victoria VIN# 2FALP71W3VX120703 of which he is the owner, and which is not an insured vehicle under this insurance.
5.Plaintiff operated said Ford Crown Victoria as a taxi cab.
6. Taxi cabs are exempt from the Motor Vehicle No Fault Law security requirements, pursuant to Florida Statute §627.733(1)(a).
7. The policy under which the claim was made has an exclusion in Part E Exclusions Section 1 that this insurance does not apply to the named insured or any relative while occupying a motor vehicle of which the named insured is the owner and which is not an insured motor vehicle under this insurance.
8. Therefore the Plaintiff is not entitled to seek personal injury protection benefits from U.S. SECURITY under the policy being sued upon.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Under Florida law summary judgment shall be granted where the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). The Third District Court of Appeals, in granting summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists, has described summary judgments as “integral” to our judicial system, with a “fundamental purpose” to “expedite litigation.” Cia. Ecuatoriana De Aviacion v. U.S. & Overseas Corp., (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Under the relevant standard, the undisputed material facts of this case, and the prevailing case law, final summary judgment should be entered in favor of U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY in this case.
Defendant’s right to final summary judgment in this case is supported by the undisputed fact that the Plaintiff was driving a vehicle not insured under the policy being sued upon and of which he is the owner. The policy under which Plaintiff is suing upon excludes coverage for this claim, and explicitly states that this insurance does not apply to the named insured or any relative while occupying a motor vehicle of which the named insured is the owner and which is not an insured motor vehicle under this insurance.
Furthermore, Florida Statute §627.736(2)(a) provides that an insurer may exclude benefits for injury sustained by the named insured and relatives residing in the same household while occupying another motor vehicle owned by the named insured and not insured under the policy. Therefore based on the undisputed facts and above-cited law, U.S. SECURITY is not obligated to pay personal injury benefits for the Plaintiff under the policy being sued upon. Specifically, the Claimant was the owner of a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria which was the car involved in the accident on January 25, 2004 and which is the basis of this claim.
Therefore U.S. SECURITY is entitled to the entry of final summary judgment on all counts against the Plaintiff herein.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. That Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff takes nothing from this action, and Defendant may go forth without delay.
