20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 668a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2007STATInsurance — Personal injury protection — Reimbursement by insurer of commercial vehicle — Sedan leased under commercial lease and used as commercial vehicle is commercial vehicle under PIP statute
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA AND WHEELS LT., Defendants. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2012-CC-000508-0. April 17, 2013. Faye L. Allen, Judge. Counsel: David B. Kampf, Ramey & Kampf, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff.
FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on November 26, 2012, before the Honorable Faye L. Allen on Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise advised in the Premise, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
1. That this matter came before the Court on the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment seeking a determination by the Court as to whether STATE FARM is entitled to a commercial right of reimbursement mainly based on whether the vehicle at issue is a commercial motor vehicle. Based on the reasons addressed below, this Court finds in favor of Plaintiff, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, and finds that the vehicle at issue is a commercial motor vehicle.
2. The facts reveal the STATE FARM insured occupied a motor vehicle/sedan owned by WHEELS, LT., and that was insured by NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG PENNSYLVANIA.
3. That WHEELS, LT., leased multiple vehicles to another company, Tyco. That Tyco then provided the vehicles to employees of Tyco for business purposes although the employees may have been entitled to use the vehicles for some personal reasons.
4. The lease agreement between WHEELS, LT., and Tyco provides that it is a“commercial lease. This lease is for agricultural, business or commercial purposes, and is not primarily for personal, family or household purposes.” Further, the testimony of James Andrew Shaffer (representative of WHEELS, LT.) reveals that WHEELS, LT., was in “the business of leasing to businesses” and that the intent of the parties to the lease agreement was to lease a commercial motor vehicle.
5. That based on the evidence presented during hearing, it is clear to this Court that the sedan at issue is a commercial motor vehicle. That the intent of the parties was to deem the vehicle to be a commercial motor vehicle. That the lease agreement in combination with the testimony clearly shows that the vehicle was intended to be a commercial motor vehicle even if the vehicle is not a commercial motor vehicle under Florida Statutes §627.732 and §627.7405.
6. However, this Court finds the sedan is a commercial motor vehicle under the no-fault statute. That Florida Statutes §627.732(3)(a) and §627.732(3)(b) must be read in conjunction with one another. That in reading the provisions, it is clear to this Court that a commercial motor vehicle is any vehicle that is not a private passenger motor vehicle. That the shape and size of the vehicle are not the determining factors, but the useage of the vehicle may be the determining factor. Therefore, in reading the statutory provisions together, and in a reasonable and logical manner, this Court finds that the statute defining ‘commercial vehicle‘ is based upon the useage of the vehicle. That a sedan is not precluded from being a commercial motor vehicle, but may be a commercial motor vehicle if the primary useage is for occupational, commercial, professional or business purposes. That it is not reasonable or logical to find a vehicle used for commercial and business purposes is to be deemed a private passenger motor vehicle for this one purpose.
7. Based on the above, this Court finds that the sedan at issue is a commercial motor vehicle resulting in Plaintiff, STATE FARM, being entitled to a commercial right of reimbursement pursuant to Florida Statute §627.7405. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment shall be denied. Based upon the parties’ agreement that there are no remaining issues to be adjudicated by this Court pertaining to the underlying cause of action, final judgment is appropriate.
8. Plaintiff, STATE FARM’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall be granted. STATE FARM shall be entitled to reimbursement of benefits of $10,000 as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest that shall accrue at a rate of 4.75 percent per annum, for which sum let execution issue.
11. Defendants shall take nothing from this cause of action and shall go hence without a day.
12. This Court reserves jurisdiction to address entitlement and reasonableness as to Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs as well as Plaintiff’s entitlement to sanctions.
* * *
