From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shivers v. Enterprise

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Feb 28, 2007
950 So. 2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

Opinion

No. 4D06-799.

February 28, 2007.

Appeal from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court, Broward County, John T. Luzzo, J.

Diane H. Tutt of Diane H. Tutt, P.A. and Maria C. Aronson of Lawrence J. Bohannon, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Charles M-P George and Gary F. Baumann of George, Hartz, Lundeen, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellee.


The appellant, Leslie Shivers, was injured in an automobile accident while she was driving a vehicle that a friend had rented from Enterprise. The parties stipulated that the rental contract signed by the lessee complied with section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, in that it contained the appropriate language to make an authorized rental driver's "valid and collectible" insurance primary for the limits of liability and personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. The lessee of the Enterprise vehicle had an automobile insurance policy through Aries Insurance Company. However, at the time of the accident, Shivers did not own a motor vehicle, nor did she reside in the same household with a relative who owned a motor vehicle. As a result, there was no PIP coverage for Shivers in her own household.

Shivers sued Enterprise for PIP benefits, but the trial court ruled that Aries, rather than Enterprise, was obligated to pay for Shivers' PIP benefits. We reverse, because the Aries policy does not provide PIP coverage to Shivers. See Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Devitis, 924 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 870 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The relevant provisions in the Aries policy are substantively indistinguishable from those at issue in Devitis and Morgan. Here, the Aries policy did not extend valid and collectible coverage to Shivers, nor was Aries required to provide PIP coverage to Shivers under section 627.736, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, we have considered, and rejected, Enterprise's "statutory construction" argument that section 627.7263 requires Aries to provide PIP coverage under these circumstances. See Direct Gen. Ins. Co. v. Vreeman, 943 So.2d 914, 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) ("The coverage shifting language of the rental car agreement cannot serve to create coverage where none otherwise exists."). Consequently, Enterprise is obligated to provide PIP coverage to Shivers.

Reversed.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Shivers v. Enterprise

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Feb 28, 2007
950 So. 2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
Case details for

Shivers v. Enterprise

Case Details

Full title:Leslie SHIVERS, Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE LEASING CO., Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Feb 28, 2007

Citations

950 So. 2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

Citing Cases

United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chiropractic Clinics of S. Fla.

If there are no motor vehicles in the victim's household, the injured party is covered by the policy covering…

Prime Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Old Republic Ins. Co.

Instead, at least another district court of appeal quoted Direct General approvingly. The Fourth District…