7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 626a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Where decedent was covered by policy of automobile insurance which included $10,000 in no-fault coverage, with $2,000 deductible, insurer appropriately paid to estate $5,000 death benefit, and then $3,000 balance of available coverage as against hospital/medical expenses — Argument that statutory $5,000 death benefit is separate and distinct from mandated $10,000 in coverage rejected — Neither a creative application of deductible, nor any rule of law arguably requiring a liberal interpretation of No-Fault Act, can mandate a result of more than $3,000 in benefits being payable once death benefit is paid
SANTOS TORRES as Personal Representative for the Estate of JOSE NATAVIDAD ALFARO, Plaintiff, vs. BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. MS-99-004474-RL. June 12, 2000. Krista Marx, Judge. Counsel: Diego C. Asencio, Diego C. Asencio, P.A., North Palm Beach. Cymonie S. Rowe, Flanagan, Maniotis & Berger, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Defendant.
FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY
THIS MATTER was heard on the Motion of Defendant, BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, for Partial Summary Judgment and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the premises finds as follows:
1. At the time of his fatal automobile accident, Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s decedent, ALFARO, was covered by a policy of automobile insurance which included $10,000 in no-fault coverage, with a $2,000 deductible. Before his demise, over $20,000 in medical expenses were incurred by/on behalf of ALFARO.
2. Given these circumstances, BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY appropriately paid to the Estate the $5,000 death benefit, and then the $3,000 balance of available coverage ($5,000, less the $2,000 deductible) as against the hospital/medical expenses.
3. The Court rejects the Plaintiff’s argument that the statutory $5,000 death benefit is separate and discreet from the mandated $10,000 in coverage; i.e., that it is to be paid “over and above” the mandated $10,000 in coverage, or, in the instance of a deductible, over and above the $10,000, less the deductible. Benton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 295 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (construing predecessor statute); Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes. The Court also rejects the Plaintiff’s unpleaded argument that, under the circumstances as outlined above, the No-Fault Act, or any contract of insurance found to be in compliance with the Act, can be, or should be, construed in a fashion that would increase the total benefits available above the recited policy limits. That is, under the circumstances outlined above, neither a creative application of the deductible, nor any rule of law arguably requiring a liberal interpretation of the Act, can mandate a result of more than $3,000 in medicals/lost wage benefits being payable once the death benefit (to which the deductible does not apply) is paid.
IT IS ADJUDGED that Plaintiff, SANTOS TORRES as Personal Representative for the Estate of JOSE NATAVIDAD ALFARO, take nothing by this action beyond the interest already paid it by BANKERS and the Defendant, BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, shall go hence without day. The Court reserves to itself jurisdiction to assess fees and costs upon the competing motions of the parties.
* * *
