25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 983a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2511JREYInsurance — Automobile — Jurisdiction — County court — No merit to argument that county court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claim for property damage benefits because combination of all coverages available under policy, including PIP benefits not at issue, exceeds jurisdictional limits of county court — Motion to dismiss is denied
JEANETTE MARIA REYES, Plaintiff, v. WINDHAVEN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No.: 16-CC-011133. Division K. December 20, 2017. Jared E. Smith, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Patrick Law Group, Tampa, for Plaintiff. John Molloghan, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’SAMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OFSUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
THIS CAUSE having come before this Court on November 27, 2017, on Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and, this Court, having considered arguments of counsel and applicable statutes and caselaw, finds as follows
:FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After almost one year of active litigation, discovery and depositions, Defendant, Windhaven Insurance Company, moves to dismiss this matter claiming that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant argues that this Court must combine all coverages on the face of the policy (the $10,000 PIP coverage and $11,000 property damage coverage) to reach a combined amount of $21,000 which would be in excess of the jurisdictional limits of county court. Defendant’s position would require this Court to turn a blind eye to the record facts of this case, which are that Plaintiff is not making a claim for PIP benefits and that Plaintiff’s claim is limited to property damage. Taken to its logical end, which this Court must, Defendant’s argument, if followed, would result in county courts losing jurisdiction over all PIP matters. Every automobile policy in Florida is required to have $10,000 in PIP coverage and $10,000 in property damage. Combined, that is $20,000 and in excess of the $15,000 jurisdictional limits of county court. As enticing as it may be for this court to divest itself of all PIP litigation, the absurdity of Defendant’s position becomes self-evident. Only the $11,000 in property damage coverage is at stake in this case as established in the record (see also this Court’s Final Summary Judgment entered on the same date as this Order). As such, this Court does in fact have jurisdiction over the amount in controversy.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUGED as follows:
Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED.
