8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 302a
Insurance — Automobile liability — Personal injury protection — Leased vehicles — Lessor of motor vehicle failed to shift statutory obligation for primary insurance coverage to lessee where it voluntarily departed from statute as to bold type and used inadequate and unclear provision of statutory language — Clarity was further aggravated by failure to eliminate contradictory language in documents prepared by lessor
BRIAN SCHULTZ, Plaintiff, v. ALAMO RENT-A-CAR, INC., TIMOTHY ALLEN MOODY, GERMAIN L. ESCALANTE, WILLIE A. ESCLANTE, ANDREW KRASULA and PROGRESSIVE BAYSIDE INSURANCE, Defendants. Circuit Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County. Civil Case No. 98-744-CI-15. October 11, 2000. Howard P. Rives, Senior Judge. Counsel: Timothy G. Anderson, Jeffrey R. Fuller, Daniel A. Martinez, Lisa B. Simpson, Christopher J. Nicholas, Butler Burnette Pappas, Tampa.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ALLEN MOODYAS TO F.S. 627.7263 AGAINST DEFENDANTCROSS PLAINTIFF ALAMO RENT-A-CAR, INC.
This case came on for hearing before the undersigned Senior Judge for a scheduled fifteen minute hearing on a Motion for Summary Judgment as to the sufficiency or lack of it, on the automobile rental agreement utilized by said parties Moody and Alamo.
The parties presented their oral argument at the hearing and filed with the Court a well organized memorandum with material portions of the court file and record in the case plus copies of assorted appellate decisions asserting their respective positions on the sufficiency of Alamo’s compliance in the rental agreement with F.S. 627.7263, as the same then existed at the time of the rental transaction at bar. The Court has read the materials furnished also a number of cases suggested as collateral authority which latter items are referred to in citations in this Order. All of the data furnished by counsel is being filed in the court file for later review if sought by either party. The Court itself largely did the highlighting and marking on the cases as read.
The scope of this order is limited to the issue of compliance with F.S. 627.7263. Neither party has contended that there are any issues of material fact that prevent the proper entry of an order for Summary Judgment on this issue. Paragraph 6 on Page 2 of Tab 3 of the Motion Brief sets forth the grounds that the moving party relied upon for non-compliance with the statute by Defendant Alamo. The Court finds that the case law solidly holds that failure to provide a space for or to not include an insurance company name in the rental agreement is not a sufficient basis to find the lessor has not complied, hence the Court does not find nor include that failure here as an element of non-compliance. Glover vs. Scamp Auto Rental, 682 So.2d 562 (2 DCA 1996). The Court does find that neither the statute nor any case submitted assigns any special specific definition of “Bold Type” hence the Court believes that in the everyday experience the use of that term means “a type” that will stand out as a variance from the standard print of the instrument under examination. Parenthetically the Court notes that the case at bar has print and also a typewritten paragraph which Alamo contends is sufficient for compliance.
The Second District on May 7, 1982 in Patton vs. Lindo’s Rent-A-Car, 415 So.2d 43 said that the statute provides the exclusive remedy to shift the primary responsibility and if the lessor fails to comply, he is primary. The Fourth District in Government Employees Insurance Co. vs. Ford Motor Credit Co., 616 So.2d 1186 (4/21/93) recognized at page 1187 that the language must also be clear and warning the lessee that he was paying for something the statute placed on the lessor. Compare the printing and language at bar with Commerce Insurance Co. vs. Atlas Rent-A-Car, 585 So.2d 1084 (3 DCA 1991). The Court therefore finds that Alamo has failed to shift the statutory burden by its voluntary departure from the statute as to bold type, also as to use of inadequate and unclear provision of the statutory language itself. Clarity is further aggravated by failure to eliminate contradictory language in the documents they prepared. The Court finds that the statutory purpose of the subject statute is to clearly inform the lessee that he is paying for something that public policy of the State of Florida places on the lessor. One who chooses to use other methods does so at their peril.
The Court will refrain from stating the number of hours the review of those materials and preparation of this Order has taken. It is therefore:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Timothy Allen Moody as to F.S. 627.7263 as against Alamo Rent-A-Car be and the same is hereby granted in accordance with findings heretofore set forth, but denied as to the ground relating to absence of insurance or line form for reasons stated.
* * *
