23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 316b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2304MARCInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Injuries sustained by claimant while occupying insured’s motor vehicle — Exclusions — Claimant was not owner of motor vehicle with respect to which security was required by No-Fault Law at time of accident where accident occurred during sunset or gap period when PIP law had expired and PIP coverage was not required, but optional — Trial court erred in entering final judgment in favor of insurer
HALLANDALE OPEN MRI, INC., A/A/O JEAN MARCELLUS, Appellant, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. CACE12-006131 (AP). L.T. Case No. COCE09-004531. August 27, 2015. Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Martin R. Dishowitz, Judge. Counsel: Russel M. Lazega and Yasmin Gilinsky, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Appellant. Michael J. Neimand, Office of the General Counsel, United Automobile Insurance Company, Miami, for Appellee.
OPINION
(PER CURIAM.) Hallandale Open MRI, Inc. (“Hallandale”) appeals a final judgment in favor of United Automobile Insurance Company (“UAIC”) as to the issue of coverage. Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the record and the applicable law, we dispense with oral argument, and find that the final judgment should be reversed as set forth below.
In the proceedings below, Hallandale sued UAIC in county court for breach of contract for personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits. UAIC asserted the affirmative defense that a policy exclusion to PIP benefits applied in the instant case. The county court determined the issue of coverage upon competing motions for summary judgment. This Court reviews that decision de novo. Harris v. Aberdeen Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 135 So. 3d 365, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D193a].
This Court finds that the policy language1 extends coverage for PIP benefits, and the exclusion does not apply. The alleged injuries were incurred while the party was occupying the insured’s motor vehicle. In addition, at the time of the accident, such party was not “an owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law” (the “PIP Law”) because the accident occurred during the sunset or gap period when the PIP Law had expired and PIP coverage was not required, but optional. See § 627.7407(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (effective Oct. 11, 2007) (Any person subject to the requirements of ss. 627.730-627.7405, the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, as revived and amended by this act, must maintain security for personal injury protection as required by the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, as revived and amended by this act, beginning on January 1, 2008); Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., 141 So. 3d 147, 153 (Fla. 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly S517a] (“the Legislature provided that the PIP statute would sunset, or automatically terminate, effective October 1, 2007, unless the provisions were reenacted”). Moreover, UAIC’s reliance on section 627.7407(6), Florida Statutes, and section 627.737, Florida Statutes, is misplaced.
Accordingly, the final judgment in favor of United Automobile Insurance Company is hereby REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for the county court to enter summary judgment in favor of Hallandale on the issue of coverage and for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Hallandale’s Motion for Appellate Attorney’s Fees is hereby GRANTED contingent upon Hallandale prevailing with a judgment for benefits in the county court. UAIC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is hereby DENIED. (ENGLANDER-HENNING, TUTER and MURPHY, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1The relevant sections of Morel’s policy provides as follows:PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION
[UAIC] will pay, in accordance with the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, to or for the benefit of the injured person,
(a) medical benefits . . .
(b) disability benefits . . .
(c) death benefits . . .
incurred as a result of bodily injury caused by an accident arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle and sustained by:
(a) . . .
(b) any other person while occupying the insured motor vehicle, . . .
EXCLUSIONS
This insurance does not apply:
(e) . . . to any person, other than the named insured, if such person is the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law.
