21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 576b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2106ASCEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Reimbursement by insurer of commercial vehicle — Where insured of PIP carrier was injured while operating taxicab which was insured under commercial liability policy, PIP carrier is entitled to reimbursement of PIP benefits paid pursuant to section 627.7405, which allows for reimbursement of PIP carriers of private passenger vehicles by insurer of commercial vehicles involved in accident — Taxicab is commercial motor vehicle — By terms of PIP statute, right of reimbursement remains applicable notwithstanding section 627.733(1)(b), which excludes taxicabs from security requirements of No-Fault Law
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. ASCENDANT COMMERCIAL INSURANCE, INC. AND SOMIR HEALTHCARE TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendants. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 12 03915 CC 05. November 1, 2013. Wendell M. Graham, Judge. Counsel: David B. Kampf, Ramey & Kampf, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. David J. Millheiser, Ascendant Commercial Insurance, Miami, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/REHEARING AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on October 30, 2013, on Plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or Rehearing on State Farm’s Motion Summary Judgment, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise advised in the Premise, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
1) STATE FARM’S Motion for Reconsideration and/or Rehearing shall be granted as to the Court Order entered on August 29, 2013. This Court substitutes this Order and the below findings and rulings for the previously entered Order which was in relation to the hearing on August 26, 2013, on State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
2) STATE FARM filed suit to obtain a commercial right of reimbursement from Defendants for no-fault benefits paid on behalf of the STATE FARM insured that was injured while operating a motor vehicle (taxi cab) owned by Defendant, Somir Healthcare Transportation, and insured by Ascendant Commercial Insurance. The undisputed facts reveal the insured was in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant and that the taxi cab is used primarily for business, professional, and occupational purposes. STATE FARM paid for necessary, reasonable and related treatment sustained by the STATE FARM insured as a result of the injuries.
3) Fla. Stat. §627.7405 provides a right of reimbursement to STATE FARM for benefits paid to the STATE FARM insured from the owner or the insurer of the owner of a commercial motor vehicle if “the benefits paid result from such person having been an occupant of a commercial motor vehicle”.
4) ASCENDANT asserts reimbursement is not available to STATE FARM because taxi cabs are exempt from the insurance requirements of Fla. Stat. §627.733(1)(a), if they obtain insurance under F.S. 324.032. Thus, Defendant asserts taxis and their insurers are not subject to PIP laws including F.S. 627.7405, if their policies have no PIP coverage, as was the case with Defendant.
5) However, this Court finds a right of reimbursement against ASCENDANT. The expressed language of Fla. Stat. §627.7405 clearly shows the reimbursement provision applies in light of §627.733(1)(b) since it provides, “[n]otwithstanding any other provisions of §627.730-§627.7405”. The two provisions are not inconsistent and, when read in conjunction with each other, reveal that the legislature intended for there to be a right of reimbursement regardless of whether the vehicle was insured under F.S. 627.733 or under a commercial liability policy per F.S. 324.032.
6) Also, the provision is clearly not limited to no-fault insurers. If the Florida Legislature intended for such an exception to the right of reimbursement to apply when an insurer does not provide PIP benefits, the reimbursement statute would have clearly limited reimbursement to no-fault insurers. It did not so limit reimbursement. The use of the word “insurer” in general terminology as opposed to limiting it to “no-fault insurer”, as reflected in other parts of the same statute, reveal the intent was not to limit it to no-fault insurers. The intent was to include all automobile insurers as being required to reimburse the private no-fault insurer. See Continental Cas. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 702a (Fla. 4th Jud. Cir., Duval County Appellate Ct., May 26, 2009); and State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. First Comm. Transp. & Prop. Ins. Co., 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1123a (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty. June 30, 2009). See also Stroemel v. Columbia Cnty., 930 So.2d 742, 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D1251a], (finding that words or phrases should not be inserted into a municipal ordinance to express intentions which do not appear). The language of a statute must be given plain and obvious meaning and one must assume that the Legislature knew the plain and ordinary meaning of words when it chose to include them in the statute. See Sheffield v. Davis, 562 So.2d 384, 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
7) The language of the statute, by its expressed terms, provides a right of reimbursement against the insurer of the vehicle.
8) Additionally, this Court relies on the numerous rulings finding the personal private insurer to have a right of reimbursement against the insurer of a commercial taxi cab. See State Farm v. Crum & Forster Indemn. Co., 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 408d (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., January 30, 2012); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Village Car Service, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 639a (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., March 27, 2006); State Farm v. Crum & Forster Indemn. Co. & Transp., 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 892a (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., May 21, 2012); and State Farm v. Nat’l. Union Fire Ins. Co., Case No. 2012-CC-508-0 (Fla. 9th Jud. Cir., Orange Cty., April 17, 2013) [20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 668a].
9) Further, an insurer may not narrow the scope of coverage or rely on a policy provision contrary to the clear reading of the statute and the legislative intent. The statute does not permit Defendant to avoid the right of reimbursement. See Kingsway Amigo Ins. Co. v. Ocean Health, Inc., 63 So.3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1062a] and Geico v. Virtual Imaging, 79 So.3d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA, 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D2597a].
10) The above findings are consistent with the intent of the reimbursement statute which is to reallocate the risk to the insurers of commercial vehicles and away from the private passenger motor vehicle carriers. See Amerisure Ins. Co., v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 897 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly S153a]. By requiring commercial entities to reimburse private insurers for PIP benefits, the legislature intended to reduce or at least maintain current insurance premium rates for the owners of private vehicles. Id. at 1291. Otherwise, the statute could be meaningless since most commercial carriers do not carry no-fault coverage and will not obtain such coverage so as to avoid the reimbursement requirement.
Based on the above findings, it is hereby further ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
11) That STATE FARM’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall hereby be granted. STATE FARM shall be entitled to an award of damages against ASCENDANT COMMERCIAL INSURANCE, INC., in the amount of $10,000.00 that shall accrue interest at 4.75% per annum for which sum let execution issue.
12) The Court reserves jurisdiction to address entitlement and reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs and any pre-judgment interest, where applicable.
* * *
