17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 21a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1701WALS
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Where insurance policy in effect for insured during gap period between sunsetting of PIP statute and passage of new PIP law did not include PIP coverage, summary judgment is entered in favor of insurer in suit for PIP benefits for accident that occurred during gap period
CHRISTINE WALSH, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Circuit Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 08 29108, Division K. November 13, 2009. William P. Levens, Judge. Counsel: Timothy Patrick. Scott W. Dutton & Matthew Brumley.
FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter came on to be heard on September 11, 2009 on the Defendant, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY’S (hereinafter “GEICO”), Motions for Summary Judgment, as well as the Plaintiff, Christine Walsh’s, Motion for Summary Judgment. And after reviewing the record, considering argument of counsel, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT GEICO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED, AND THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED as follows:
On December 10, 2007 the Plaintiff, Christine Walsh, was involved in a motor vehicle accident. She claimed to have been injured in the accident such that she incurred reasonable, related, and necessary medical bills for which she claims personal injury protection coverage with the Defendant, GEICO.
The key or central issue at this core of the summary judgment hearing as presented by the Plaintiff and Defendant is whether the policy of automobile insurance issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff provided personal injury protection coverage at the time of the Plaintiff’s December 10, 2007 motor vehicle accident.
As a preliminary matter, Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault law, also known as Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) Fla. Stat. §§627.730-7405 was repealed (“sunset”) as of October 1, 2007. See Laws of Florida ch. 2003-411 §19.
That said, in this case, a renewal package pertaining to coverage period November 7, 2007 to May 7, 2008, was generated by the GEICO on September 22, 2007 and mailed to the insured. The renewal package contained the following documents:
a. a declarations page for the 11/7/07-5/7/08 policy period that showed no personal injury protection coverage.
b. A letter, dated 9/22/07, addressed to Christine and James Walsh, referencing policy number 4007-81-16-33, discussed at length the fact that personal injury protection coverage was to sunset effective 10/1/07, and that personal injury protection would not be included in the insured’s policy for the 11/7/07-5/7/08 period. The letter states . . . “your policy no longer provides certain benefits to you such as medical expenses, lost wages, and death benefits, regardless of who is at fault in an accident.
c. The 9/22/07 letter also provides options available to the Walsh’s. (1) “. . . you may consider purchasing optional Medical Payments coverage. This coverage pays for reasonable and necessary medical, dental, hospital, and funeral expenses for you and resident family members,” (2) “. . .with the end of the no-fault system, your exposure to a lawsuit increases. To adequately protect yourself your family and your assets you may wish to consider additional Bodily Injury and Uninsured Motorist coverage.”
d. Insurance cards (wallet-sized) that clearly indicate that the subject policy did NOT provide personal injury protection coverage.
e. A copy of the subject policy.
A new PIP law was passed in the Special Session of the Florida Legislature and was signed into law by Governor Christ on October 11, 2007. The “new law” required Florida drivers to possess PIP coverage effective January 1, 2008. See Laws of Florida ch. 2007-324 §§ 21, 23.
In the interim period, before the new law required the Plaintiff to carry personal injury protection coverage, on 11/13/07 (effective 11/14/07) there was a change in the insured’s lien-holder information and an amended policy package was processed and mailed to the Walsh’s. The declarations sheet contained in this package again did not provide personal injury protection coverage.
Thereafter, to inform the Walsh’s of the change in the law requiring mandatory personal injury protection coverage effective 1/1/08 GEICO generated an explanatory letter regarding the advent of the new law, and an amended policy package was forwarded on 12/8/07 adding personal injury protection onto the policy effective 1/1/08. Importantly, per the endorsement adding the personal injury protection coverage the “Endorsement Effective” date was listed as “01-01-08”.
After reviewing the foregoing documentation there is no material issue of fact or law that the GEICO policy in effect at the time of the Plaintiff’s December 10, 2007 accident did not have personal injury protection coverage.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Final Summary Judgment is GRANTED for GEICO, and they shall go hence without day. The Plaintiff, Christine’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. GEICO’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the presuit demand issue is DENIED. This Court retains jurisdiction to determine, upon appropriate motions, the Defendant’s motion to tax fees and costs.
