6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 790a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Claim for PIP benefits by plaintiff, who was injured after colliding with automobile while riding bicycle, from driver of automobile which was covered by PIP policy — Summary judgment for defendant driver proper where there remain no disputed issues of material fact as to whether plaintiff is entitled to PIP coverage under driver’s PIP policy — Jury found that plaintiff was not resident of state at time of accident per section 672.736(4)(d)4 where defense was permitted to submit evidence of plaintiff’s illegal alien status — Question certified: Is the fact that a person entered and remains in the United States illegally as an undocumented or “illegal” alien relevant to a determination of whether that person is a “resident of this state,” as the term is used in F.S. 627.736(4)(d)4? If so, is such evidence nonetheless inadmissible because “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury,” per F.S. 90.403?
VICENTE MALDONADO, Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit, in and for Manatee County. Case No. 1995-CC-696 (Formerly Case No. CL95-696). August 27, 1999. K. Douglas Henderson, Judge. Counsel: Perry Tanksley, Sarasota, for Appellant. Randy L. Stowell, Reynolds & Stowell, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee.
Reversed at 26 Fla. L. Weekly D1619a
FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH CERTIFIED QUESTIONS
This case was heard on both parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment on May 12, 1999. The material undisputed facts are as follows: On August 19, 1993, while riding a bicycle, Plaintiff was injured after colliding with an automobile, the driver of which was covered by a personal injury protection insurance (“PIP”) policy issued by Defendant at the time of the accident. Plaintiff did not own a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law (Sections 627.730-627.7505, F.S.). Plaintiff accordingly claimed PIP benefits from Defendant, which denied coverage on the basis that Plaintiff was not a Florida resident when the accident occurred per F.S. 627.736(4)(d)4.
Plaintiff contends that he was at the time of the accident a resident of this state, but concedes that he was also an illegal alien. Over Plaintiff’s objections, the Court permitted the Defense to submit evidence of Plaintiff’s illegal alien status to the jury, which found that he was not a resident of the state.
Pursuant to this verdict, Plaintiff is not entitled to PIP coverage under Defendant’s policy. Thus, there remain no disputed issues of material fact and summary judgment shall issue for Defendant.
The court is of the opinion that this case issues of first impression which, if answered by the Second District Court of Appeal, will contribute to Florida jurisprudence on a statewide basis. It is common knowledge that many aliens are living in Florida in an unlawful and unauthorized status similar to Plaintiff at any given point in time. For those illegal aliens who are not required to have insurance, their status as omnibus PIP insureds should be clarified on a statewide level. Therefore, pursuant to F.S. 34.017 and Fl.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(4), the court certifies to the Second District Court of Appeal the following questions to be of great public importance:
Is the fact that a person entered and remains in the United States illegally as an undocumented or “illegal” alien relevant to a determination of whether that person is a “resident of this state,” as the term is used in F.S. 627.736(4)(d)4? If so, is such evidence nonetheless inadmissible because “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, [or] misleading the jury,” per F.S. 90.403?
Accordingly and being fully informed, it is ADJUDGED THAT Plaintiff Vicente Maldonado is not entitled to No-Fault personal injury protection benefits from Defendant Allstate Insurance Company relative to injuries he sustained on August 19, 1993. Defendant shall go hence without day.
* * *
