27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1050a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2712OLIVInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Rental vehicle involved in accident outside of Florida — Where claimant was involved in accident in rental vehicle driven by her resident relative outside of Florida, renter was not titled owner of vehicle, and vehicle was not subject of lease with option to purchase or security agreement, rental company is not required to provide PIP coverage to renter or passengers under PIP statute’s limitations on coverage for accidents occurring outside state
RICHARD A. HENRY, DC, P.A., a/a/o Charlotte Oliver, Plaintiff v. ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF FLORIDA, LLC, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE17014936, Division 54. June 27, 2019. Florence Barner, Judge. Counsel: Susan Guller, Law Office of Justin G. Morgan, P.A., Weston, for Plaintiff. Alejandra Jay, McFarlane Dolan & Prince, Coral Springs, for Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION FORFINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on May 23, 2019 upon Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s Motions for Final Summary Judgment, and the Court having considered the Motions, having heard argument of counsel, having reviewed the Court record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
Shandera Woodside rented a vehicle from Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida, LLC. (d/b/a Alamo Rent-A-Car) at the Miami International Airport on November 22, 2016. Pursuant to the rental agreement Ms. Woodside was scheduled to return the rental vehicle on November 29, 2016. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 627.7263, the rental agreement provided in bold type on the first page that the driver’s policy would be primary for the limits of liability and PIP coverage required by Fla. Stat. 324.021(7) and 627.736[1].
There is no record evidence indicating that Ms. Woodside or any of her passengers owned a vehicle or resided with relatives that owned a vehicle, for which security was required by Florida Law.
On November 27, 2016, Ms. Woodside was operating the rental vehicle with 6 passengers, including the assignor Charlotte Oliver[2], when Ms. Woodside was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Georgia. As a result of the motor vehicle accident in Georgia, Ms. Oliver sought medical care and treatment in Florida from Plaintiff, Richard A. Henry, D.C., P.A. The Plaintiff submitted a claim for reimbursement of PIP benefits to the Defendant.
The Defendant denied PIP coverage and the instant lawsuit for PIP benefits ensued.
In the instant suit, competing Motions for Summary Judgment were filed. Both parties agree that the only issue to be determined is whether Ms. Woodside, who had rightful possession of the rental vehicle at the time of the accident, is considered an “owner” of the vehicle for purposes of Florida’s PIP Statute.
I. DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT
Defendant argues that Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(e) 2. and 3. limits reimbursement of PIP benefits for accidents that occur outside the State of Florida, only when the insured is occupying either a vehicle owned by the insured or a vehicle owned by the insured’s resident relative. Defendant further argues that pursuant to the definition of “owner” found in Fla. Stat. 627.732(5), the renter Ms. Woodside is not the “owner” of the rental vehicle, and passenger Ms. Oliver, was not a resident relative of the owner of the rental vehicle. As such, Defendant maintains it is not obligated to provide PIP coverage to the renter or passengers as the accident occurred outside of Florida.
In support of its Motion, the Defendant relies on the rental agreement, the terms and conditions of the rental agreement, and the legal title of the rental vehicle which all identify the owner of the rental vehicle as the Defendant. The Defendant also cites to Harris v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 821 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D1681c] to support the position that Defendant is not obligated to provide PIP benefits for renters of its vehicles or passengers in its rental vehicles, for injuries in motor vehicle accidents that occur outside of Florida.
II. Plaintiff’s Argument
Plaintiff argues that pursuant to Fla. Stat. 627.736(1), the Defendant is obligated to provide PIP coverage to any persons occupying the rental vehicle, and that where the accident occurred is irrelevant.
In addition, Plaintiff argues that pursuant to the definition of “owner” found in Fla. Stat. 627.732(5), any lessee “having the right to possession” of the vehicle is deemed an owner of the vehicle, and since Ms. Woodside had rightful possession of the rental vehicle, she must be considered an “owner” of the vehicle. The Plaintiff also cites to Fla. Stat. 320.01(3) which defines “owner” as “any person, firm, corporation, or association controlling any motor vehicle or mobile home by right of purchase, gift, lease or otherwise.”
In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that an issue of fact remains regarding whether the rental agreement at issue was a security agreement, thereby precluding entry of summary judgment.
I. ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the terms of Florida’s PIP Statute, 627.736(4)(e), PIP benefits are due as follows:
(4) Payment of benefits.
(e) The insurer of the owner of a motor vehicle shall pay personal injury protection benefits for:
2. Accidental bodily injury sustained outside this state, but within the United States of America or its territories or possessions or Canada, by the owner while occupying the owner’s motor vehicle.
3. Accidental bodily injury sustained by a relative of the owner residing in the same household, under the circumstances described in subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2., if the relative at the time of the accident is domiciled in the owner’s household and is not the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under ss. 627.730-627.7405.
Despite Plaintiff’s argument that the location of the accident is irrelevant, a plain reading of 627.736(4)(e) 2. and 3. indicates that there is no PIP coverage for injury to an insured outside of Florida, unless the insured is occupying a vehicle owned by the insured or a vehicle owned by the insured’s resident relative.
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 627.732, titled “Definitions,” an owner of a vehicle is defined as:
(5) “Owner” means a person who holds the legal title to a motor vehicle; or, in the event a motor vehicle is the subject of a security agreement or lease with an option to purchase with the debtor or lessee having the right to possession, then the debtor or lessee shall be deemed the owner for the purposes of ss. 627.730-627.7405.
Plaintiff refers the Court to other statutory definitions of “owner.” However, the Court finds that Fla. Stat. 627.732 specifically defines the term at issue, and therefore, there is no need to go to definitions contained in other Florida Statutes in addressing how “owner” is defined when used in Florida’s PIP Statute. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Lincoln General Ins. Co., 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 617a (9th Jud. Cir., Orange Cty, Feb 17, 2014).
Concerning the first part of the definition of an “owner” found in section 627.732(5), the record evidence is undisputed that Defendant’s parent corporation holds legal title of the rental vehicle.
Concerning the remainder of the definition, the Plaintiff urges the Court to read section 627.732(5) as defining “owner” as any lessee who has “right to possession” of the rental vehicle. While there is no dispute that at the time of the motor vehicle accident, Ms. Woodside had rightful possession of the rental vehicle, Plaintiff’s argument ignores the prior language in the definition, which clearly states that “in the event a motor vehicle is the subject of . . . lease with an option to purchase with the debtor or lessee having the right to possession,” then the lessee is considered an “owner.” There is nothing in the rental agreement or the terms and conditions of the rental agreement, which indicates that Ms. Woodside signed a “lease with an option to purchase” the rental vehicle. In fact, by the terms of the rental agreement, Ms. Woodside was obligated to return the rental vehicle within one week.
Plaintiff also argues that an issue of fact remains as to whether the rental agreement at issue is a security agreement, as Ms. Woodside was obligated to “secure” the rental with a monetary deposit. However, this argument fails as a plain reading of the rental agreement and the terms and conditions at issue, reveals that the rental agreement was not a security agreement as it did not impose any requirements on the renter indicative of a security interest or indicating that the renter would own the rental vehicle upon compliance of the rental agreement. See Fla. Stat. 671.201 (38); see also, UC Leasing, Inc. v. Barnett Bank, 443 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)(finding that a contract for rental equipment was not just a lease, but a security agreement as it imposed requirements on the lessee indicative of ownership, such as the lessee had to pay taxes on the equipment, secure insurance for the equipment, maintain and repair the equipment and the contract contained an option to purchase the equipment.)
The Court finds that pursuant to the statutory definition of “owner” found in Fla. Stat. 627.732(5), the renter, Ms. Woodside, was not the “owner” of the vehicle at issue. Therefore, because the accident occurred outside of Florida, pursuant to Florida’s PIP Statute, 627.736(4)(e) 2. and 3., the Defendant is not obligated to provide PIP coverage to the renter or to the passengers in the rental vehicle.
The Court is persuaded by the opinion in Harris v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 821 so.2d 1211 (Fla.1st DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D1681c]. In Harris, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s entry of summary judgment finding that pursuant to a policy endorsement providing there was no PIP coverage for injuries outside of Florida unless the insured was occupying a vehicle owned by the insured, Cotton States was not obligated to provide PIP coverage as the accident sued upon occurred in a rental vehicle outside of Florida. In holding as such, the First District Court of Appeal examined the Cotton States PIP endorsement language and found that it was “entirely consistent” with the requirements of the PIP Statute.
Wherefore, based on the foregoing, this Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on the issue of ownership, and finds that the renter, Ms. Woodside, is not an owner of the rental vehicle for purposes of Florida’s PIP Statute and therefore, the renter and passengers in the Defendant’s rental vehicle are not entitled to Florida PIP benefits from Defendant for a motor vehicle accident that occurs in the State of Georgia
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Court enters Final Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff shall take nothing by this action and shall go hence forth without day.
The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine Defendant’s entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
__________________
1The record evidence confirms that the Defendant holds a certificate of self-insurance with the State of Florida, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 324.171.
2There is no dispute that at the time of the loss, the renter Ms. Woodside and passenger Ms. Oliver, were resident relatives.
