19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 926a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1911LAURInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Non-owner of vehicle — No error in entering directed verdict for insurer where there was no evidence presented as to how plaintiff, who was injured while driving cousin’s vehicle. was covered by cousin’s PIP policy
GIOVANIE LAURENT, Appellant, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. CACE-09-022963 (12). L.T. Case No. COCE-04-021051 (51). May 22, 2012. Honorable Martin R. Dishowitz, Judge. Counsel: Marlene Reiss, Miami, for Appellant. Thomas L. Hunker, United Automobile Company, Office of General Counsel, Appellant Division, Miami, for Appellee.
[Editor’s Note: Cert. denied. Fla. 4DCA, Case No. 4D12-2582, August 9, 2012.]OPINION OF THE COURT
(GATES, Judge.) THIS CAUSE came before the Court sitting in its appellate capacity, upon the Appellant’s timely appeal of the trial court’s order granting Appellee/Defendant’s Motion on for Directed Verdict. This Court, having considered the brief from both parties, the record on appeal, applicable case law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises finds as follows:
At the trial level Ms. Laurent sought PIP benefits under her cousin’s car insurance provider, the Defendant United Auto Insurance Company. In January 2003, Ms. Laurent was driving her cousin’s borrowed vehicle when she had an accident and incurred injuries. She had neither a car of her own, nor car insurance at the time of the accident. At the close of Laurent’s case in chief the court granted the UAIC’s Motion for directed verdict because Laurent’s failure to establish evidence that she was covered by her cousin’s insurance. The court granted the motion for directed verdict.
A motion for directed verdict should be granted only when the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that a jury could not reasonably differ as to the existence of a material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. Amora, 944 So. 2d 431, 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D2848a].
The burden is on the insured to prove that the insurance policy covers a claim against it. There was evidence presented that Ms. Laurent’s cousin had insurance coverage, but, there was no evidence presented as to how Ms. Laurent was covered by the insurance. The trial court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Laurent, found that in order for the jury to bring back a verdict, information about the policy would need to have been entered into evidence, “. . . or at least some evidence of what the policy says would have to be presented to the jury.” (T. page 278, lines 11-19). Further, the trial court stated that, “Since there is no finding of coverage, there can’t be any finding of damages so the case is over.” (T. page 280, lines 8-10).
This Court finds that there was insufficient evidence upon which the jury could conclude the amount, if any, of automobile insurance coverage Ms. Laurent, and the trial court did not error in granting UAIC’s motion for a directed verdict.
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that for the above stated reasons the order granting Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict is AFFIRMED.
* * *
