6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 564a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Pedestrian who did not come into contact with motor vehicle which struck and fatally injured her companion and who was not physically injured not entitled to coverage for psychological counseling
ROBIN RACE, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court of the 5th Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County. Case No. 99-73CC. June 2, 1999. Richard W. Boylston, Judge. Counsel: Debra W. Botwin, Moriarty & Botwin, Winter Park. Marc Williams.
ORDER
This case came before this court for hearing on the matter of Defendant State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court, having considered the Motion, Affidavits in Support, Exhibits, argument of counsel and applicable case law, the Court rules as follows:
1. State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment was based on a coverage question interpreting its automobile insurance policy language and the PIP statute. The undisputed facts of this matter are that Robin Race was a pedestrian when her companion was struck and fatally injured by a motor vehicle. The vehicle did not contact Ms. Race, nor was she physically injured during the incident. Ms. Race sought coverage for psychological counseling.
2. The threshold issue considered by this Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment was whether physical contact with the motor vehicle is required for PIP coverage.
3. The State Farm automobile insurance policy language states as follows:
What We Pay
We will pay in accordance with the No-Fault Act for bodily injury to an insured, caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle….
* * * *
Insured — means:
1. you or any relative:
a. while occupying a motor vehicle; or
b. struck as a pedestrian by a motor vehicle;
4. The policy language is similar to Florida Statute §627.736(4)(d)(1) which states as follows:
The insurer of the owner of a motor vehicle shall pay personal injury protection benefits for:
1. Accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by the owner while occupying a motor vehicle, or while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle if the injury is caused by physical contact with a motor vehicle.
(Emphasis added).
5. In Smith v. Fortune Insurance Company, 506 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the Fifth District Court of Appeal strictly interpreted the statutory language for pedestrians to require physical contact, and affirmed summary judgment for the insurer. See also Laninfa v. Prudential Prop. and Cas. Ins., 656 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (interpreting similar automobile insurance policy language from Prudential).
6. Based upon the undisputed facts and the case law, this Court hereby grants State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment and finds that there is no PIP coverage as a result of this incident.
* * *
