15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 912a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reimbursement by insurer of commercial vehicle — Florida Highway Patrol sedan is not private passenger vehicle within meaning of statute providing for reimbursement of PIP carrier for benefits paid for injuries sustained by insured while occupant of commercial vehicle
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2007-33540-COCI. January 18, 2008. Stasia Warren, Judge. Counsel: David B. Kampf, Ramey & Kampf, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. Jason O. Brown, Cranshaw Brown, Ormond Beach, for Defendant. Michael Slick.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before this Court for hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This Court has heard the arguments, reviewed the file, and reviewed the applicable law. This Court denies the motion as follows:
State Farm brought this action for commercial right of reimbursement from the Florida Highway Patrol for No-Fault benefits paid by State Farm to its insured. The insured was injured while occupying a motor vehicle belonging to the Florida Highway Patrol. The undisputed facts show that the vehicle was being used in the course of regular Highway Patrol business and State Farm’s insured was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
Under Fla. Stat. ch 627.7405, an insurance entity has the right of reimbursement for benefits paid by the insurance entity to its insured where the benefits paid “result from such person having been an occupant of a commercial motor vehicle.”
The Florida Highway Patrol argues that because the vehicle was a sedan, it is not a commercial vehicle under Fla. Stat. ch. 627.732(3)(b). Instead, it is a private passenger vehicle under Fla. Stat. ch. 627.732(3)(a).1 The Florida Highway patrol cites to an opinion from the Thirteenth Circuit in support of this position. State Farm v. Clarendon, 2003 WL 21638297 (Fla. 13th Cir. 2003) [10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 477d].
By contrast, State Farm argues that the use of the vehicle is what determines whether it is a commercial vehicle or a private passenger vehicle. State Farm cites to a number of judgments to support this posture. Of particular interest are three judgments from the Sixth Circuit. State Farm v. Progressive, Case No. 99-455-CI-08 (Sixth Circuit, 2000); State Farm v. Yellow Cab, Case No. 00-465-CO-39 (Sixth Circuit, 2000); and State Farm v. Everett Rice, Case No. 97-6990-SCNPC (Sixth Circuit, 1998).
The Rice court found that Fla. Stat. ch. 627.732 is ambiguous and certified a question to the Second District Court of Appeal asking, “Whether the legislature intended to define passenger motor vehicles and commercial motor vehicles based upon the shape and type of the vehicle, rather than the use of the vehicle pursuant to section 627.732, Florida Statutes.” In that action, as in this action, State Farm was seeking reimbursement from a law enforcement agency for damages resulting from an accident involving an insured of State Farm while the individual was an occupant of a sedan being used in the course of regular business. It was the determination of the circuit court that the sedan belonging to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office was a commercial vehicle based on its use for business, professional or occupational purposes. In making this determination the Rice court stated the following:
This Court finds the statutory definition of motor vehicle and commercial vehicle, pursuant to §627.732 Florida Statutes, to be ambiguous and, thus, relies upon a reasonable and practical reading of the statute. This Court further finds that the legislative intent was not to define passenger motor vehicles and commercial motor vehicles based upon the shape or type of the vehicle, but the use of the vehicle. Thus, a motor vehicle used for business, occupational or professional purposes cannot be a “private passenger motor vehicle,” and must be considered “commercial motor vehicle,” and thus the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office sedan is a commercial vehicle, as same is used for business, professional or occupational purposes. Rice at Pgs. 2-3.
In State Farm v. Progressive, Case No. 99-455-CI-08 (Sixth Circuit, 2000), the Sixth Circuit restated this position.
While this Court acknowledges that the Thirteenth Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in State Farm v. Clarendon, 2003 WL 21638297 (Fla. 13th Cir. 2003) [10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 477d], this Court agrees with the Sixth Circuit’s finding. It would make no sense whatsoever to define a vehicle as a personal passenger vehicle when it is owned by a government entity, operated for business purposes of that entity, and involved in a crash while carrying out the business of the entity. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
__________________
1Fla. Stat. ch. 627.732(3) “Motor vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle with four or more wheels which is of a type both designed and required to be licensed for use on the highways of this state and any trailer or semitrailer designed for use with such vehicle and includes:
(a) A “private passenger motor vehicle,” which is any motor vehicle which is a sedan, station wagon, or jeep-type vehicle and, if not used primarily for occupational, professional, or business purposes, a motor vehicle of the pickup, panel, van, camper, or motor home type.
(b) A “commercial motor vehicle,” which is any motor vehicle which is not a private passenger motor vehicle.
