15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 263a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reimbursement from owner or insurer of commercial vehicle — Taxicab passenger — Taxi company’s commercial and general liability insurance carrier is required to reimburse injured passenger’s PIP insurer — Where evidence shows vehicle was primarily used for business, occupational, and professional purposes, sedan occupied by insured at time of accident is deemed commercial motor vehicle regardless of shape of vehicle — Interpretation of statute to provide that sedan is never commercial vehicle would lead to unreasonable and impractical reading of statute — Fact that commercial policy does not include no-fault coverage is irrelevant since policy is clearly intended to cover losses due to accident, and there is no dispute that current loss relates to accident

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LLC, Defendants. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2006-CC-018487. January 9, 2008. John A. Moran, Judge. Counsel: David B. Kampf, Ramey & Kampf, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. Miriam R. Merlo, Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Esco & Dimatteo, Coral Gables, for Defendant Continental Casualty Company. W. Alan Winter, Winter Law Firm, Neptune Beach, for Defendant Jacksonville Transportation Group, LLC.

Affirmed at 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 702a

ORDER

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on November 14, 2007, on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant, Continental Casualty Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having heard argument of Counsel and being otherwise advised in the premises, it hereby makes the following findings:

1. State Farm filed suit to obtain a commercial right of reimbursement from Defendants for no-fault benefits paid to the State Farm insured. State Farm’s insured was injured while occupying a motor vehicle owned by Defendant, Jacksonville Transportation Group. The vehicle was insured by Defendant, Continental Casualty Company.

2. The undisputed facts revealed the vehicle at issue was used primarily for business, professional and occupational purposes. Further, the insured was operating the vehicle within the scope and course of his employment with Jacksonville Transportation Group at the time of the loss. In fact, the State Farm insured was occupying the taxicab at the time of the accident. It was undisputed that the State Farm insured sustained injuries while being an occupant of the sedan at the time of the loss.

3. State Farm paid for necessary, reasonable and related treatment sustained by the State Farm insured as a result of the injuries incurred in the accident.

4. Section 627.7405, Florida Statutes, provides a right of reimbursement to State Farm for benefits paid to the State Farm insured from the owner or the insurer of the owner of a commercial motor vehicle if, “the benefits paid result from such person having been an occupant of a commercial motor vehicle”.

5. Based on the above facts and the undisputed evidence that the vehicle was primarily for business, occupational and professional services, the Jacksonville Transportation Group sedan occupied by the State Farm insured at the time of the accident shall be deemed a commercial motor vehicle irrelevant of the shape of the vehicle. This court finds that a literal reading of the statute as asserted by Defendant that a sedan is never a commercial motor vehicle results in an unreasonable and impractical reading of the statute. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Village Car Service, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 639a (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir., Broward County, March 27, 2006); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Barotruck Corp., 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 614 (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade County, March 28, 2006); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Everett S. Rice, Case No. 97-6990 (Fla. 6th Jud. Cir., Pinellas County, June 18, 1998); State Farm Mut. Auto. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Case No. 99-4555 (Fla. 6th Jud. Cir., Pinellas County, February 1, 2000); and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Yellow Cab of Tampa Bay, Inc., Case No. 00-465 (Fla. 6th Jud Cir., Pinellas County, April 4, 2000).

6. Further, the fact that the vehicle was used as a taxi cab is also irrelevant. Even if said vehicle was not required to carry insurance, which it obviously did carry insurance, based upon the undisputed facts, the owner of the vehicle remains responsible to reimburse the personal injury protection carrier.

7. In addition, Continental Casualty Insurance Company maintains insurance for the subject vehicle and it is undisputed the insurance substantially exceeds $10,000.00. Continental Casualty is required to reimburse State Farm under the policy that carries commercial coverage and/or general liability coverage. The fact the Continental policy does not specifically include no-fault coverage is irrelevant since the policy clearly is intended to provide coverage for losses resulting from accidents and there is no dispute that the current loss relates to an accident.

Based upon the above findings, it is hereby:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. Defendant, Continental Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall hereby be DENIED.

2. State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall hereby be GRANTED. This court finds the vehicle owned by Defendant which the State Farm insured occupied at the time of the accident shall be a commercial motor vehicle for purposes under the Florida No-Fault Statutes. Further, Defendant, Continental Casualty, shall hereby be deemed to be required to reimburse State Farm no-fault benefits pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7405.

3. Therefore, State Farm shall be entitled to an award of damages in the amount of $10,000.00. State Farm is entitled to prejudgment interest at 7% per annum. State Farm agrees that interest begins to accrue on December 31, 2005, more than ninety (90) days from the last payment. Interest through January 1, 2008 totals $1,400.00.

4. The Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of damages to State Farm.

5. Therefore, this Court finds that State Farm is entitled to recover from Defendant the sum of $11,400.00 that shall accrue interest at the rate of 9% per annum, for which sum let execution issue.

6. This court reserves jurisdiction to hear argument and to determine State Farm’s entitlement, if any, as to the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs. The court further reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of pre-judgment interest.