19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 750a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1909STATInsurance — Personal injury protection — Reimbursement by owner of commercial vehicle — Patrol car sedan used primarily, if not exclusively, for police business is commercial motor vehicle, not private passenger vehicle
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 10-05200 CC 05. April 24, 2012. Honorable Wendell M. Graham, Judge. Counsel: David B. Kampf, Ramey & Kampf, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff.
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AND FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on March 26, 2012, on Plaintiff, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company’s, Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant, City of Miami Gardens’, Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereupon:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Court finds that the undisputed facts establish that the vehicle at issue is a patrol car sedan owned by the City of Miami Gardens and that it is used primarily, if not exclusively, for police business.
2. The Court finds that based on the vehicle being used for police business, it does not meet the definition of a “private passenger motor vehicle” in Section 627.732, Florida Statutes, because it is used primarily for “occupational, professional, or business purposes.”
3. The Court finds that the use of the vehicle is the most significant factor in determining whether the vehicle is a “commercial motor vehicle.” The statutory definitions provide a basis and/or examples of the type of vehicles that may be “private passenger motor vehicles” and “commercial motor vehicles,” but that it is not an exclusive or exhaustive list.
4. The Court finds that under Section 627.732, Florida Statutes, if the vehicle at issue is used primarily for “ ‘occupational, professional, or business purposes’ ”, it shall be deemed a “commercial motor vehicle.”
5. Based on the above findings, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
6. Based on the above findings, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and finds that the Plaintiff shall be entitled to a right of reimbursement pursuant to Section 627.7405, Florida Statutes, in the amount of $8,832.44.
7. FINAL JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, and against Defendant, CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS, for $8,832.44.
8. The Court reserves jurisdiction to address entitlement, if any, to costs, post judgment interest, or any other amounts based upon the above-identified reimbursement.
* * *
