18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 879a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1809STAT
Insurance — personal injury protection — Reimbursement by insurer of commercial vehicle — Sedan which was used primarily for business, occupational, and professional purposes was a commercial motor vehicle, not a private passenger motor vehicle — Legislative intent was to define commercial vehicle based upon use of vehicle, not based upon shape/type/size of vehicle
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Circuit Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Civil Division. Case No. 99-4555-CI-08. February 1, 2000. [Editor’s note: Filing Date is 2000.] Thomas Penick, Jr., Judge. Counsel: David B. Kampf, Ramey & Kampf, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This cause came before the Court and being heard by Honorable Judge Karl B. Grube on January 4, 2000, on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment having reviewed the file and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is thereupon:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED
1. That the parties stipulate and agree there are no material issues of fact. The parties agree the vehicle at issue is a sedan. The parties agree the vehicle is used primarily for business purposes.
2. The parties agree and stipulate the sedan automobile at issue is insured under a “PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL AUTO POLICY.”
3. That based on the above agreements and stipulations, and evidence submitted to this Court, the State Farm insureds were occupants of an automobile when an accident occurred wherein State Farm paid personal injury protection benefits pursuant to the State Farm policy of insurance and no-fault statutes. This Court further finds the legislative intent was not to define commercial motor vehicles based upon the shape/type/size of the vehicle; but the legislative intent was to define commercial motor vehicle based upon the use of the vehicle.
4. That this Court finds the statutory definition of motor vehicle, including commercial vehicle, pursuant to Section 627.732, Florida Statutes, to be ambiguous and, thus, relies upon a reasonable and practical reading of the statute. Thus, the vehicle at issue, which is used primarily for business, occupational and professional purposes must be a commercial motor vehicle, not a private passenger motor vehicle. That the sedan at issue is a commercial motor vehicle pursuant to the statute. This Court finds State Farm is entitled to reimbursement pursuant to Section 627.7405, Florida Statutes, of all no-fault benefits paid to its insureds while occupants of the commercial motor vehicle.
5. Based upon the above findings this Court finds Plaintiff to be entitled to reimbursement of No-Fault benefits paid to Kevin Citarella, Jr., Matthew Citarella and David Citarella. This Court reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of reimbursement due State Farm from Defendant per each above named insured as well as the amount of any and all damages at issue.
6. This Court reserves jurisdiction as to entitlement and amount of costs and attorneys’ fees.
