15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 375a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Counties — Sovereign immunity — Action by PIP carrier against county/employer of insured for reimbursement of PIP benefits paid for injuries incurred while insured was occupant of county-owned vehicle is dismissed — County cannot be sued for cause of action under PIP statute
OCEAN HARBOR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 07-490 CC 23 (2). January 17, 2008. Carryn Canner Schwartz, Judge. Counsel: Melissa S. Vandewater, Lawrence D. Popritkin, P.A., Plantation, for Plaintiff. Marlon D. Moffett, Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the 14th day of December, 2007 on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, the basis of which is an action for reimbursement pursuant to the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, Section 627.7405, Fla. Stat. wherein Plaintiff paid PIP benefits to its insured as a result of injuries sustained in an accident in which he was an occupant of a motor vehicle owned by Defendant that was involved in an accident with a Third Party. Plaintiff’s insured is an employee of Defendant, and after hearing argument of counsel and reviewing their Motions, memoranda and case law submitted and after reviewing applicable Florida Statute (and having determined that whether or not the vehicle driven by Plaintiff’s insured was a commercial vehicle and whether or not he was acting within the scope of his employment with Miami-Dade County at the time of the accident are both irrelevant), it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed, with prejudice. To date, the State of Florida has only waived sovereign immunity for liability for torts, and only to the extent specified in section 768.28, Fla. Stat.: “In accordance with S.13, Art. X of the State Constitution, the State, for itself and for its agencies or subdivisions, hereby waives sovereign immunity for liability for torts, but only to the extent specified in the Act. Actions at law against the state or any of its agencies or subdivisions to recover damages in tort. . .may be prosecuted subject to the limitations specified in this act. . .” The County cannot be sued pursuant to a cause of action under Section 627.7405. Insurer’s right of reimbursement, under the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault, in accordance with the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In Arnold v. Shumpert, 217 So. 116 (Fla. 1968), the Court held, “A County is a division of the state. It enjoys the state’s sovereign immunity unless the Legislative by general law provides otherwise. . .” The Court in Am. Home Assurance Co. v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2005) states, “Only the Legislature has authority to enact a general law that waives the states sovereign immunity. . .In interpreting such legislative waivers of sovereign immunity this Court has stated that it must strictly construe the waiver. . .Waiver will not be found as a product of inference or implication.”
