From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Witko v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 10, 1977
348 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

No. 76-1551.

July 1, 1977. Rehearing Denied August 10, 1977.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, John H. Moore, II, J.

Gary A. Esler, Esler Kirschbaum, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

William D. Ricker, Jr., and Ronald A. Fitzgerald, Fleming, O'Bryan Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.


The question presented in this appeal is whether a minor plaintiff, who does not own a motor vehicle, may recover personal injury protection benefits under the Florida Automobile Reparations Act from the insurer of a motor vehicle which struck and injured him while he was a pedestrian, when such plaintiff was a resident of the household of his mother who owned a motor vehicle for which security was required, but which motor vehicle was uninsured. Based upon the reasons and rationale expressed by our sister districts in Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Williams, 309 So.2d 617 (Fla.1st DCA 1975); Farley v. Gateway Ins. Co., 302 So.2d 177 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); and Gateway Insurance Co. v. Butler, 293 So.2d 738 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), the question posed is answered in the affirmative and the summary final judgment entered in favor of the defendant-appellee is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

MAGER, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., and KANEY, FRANK N., Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Witko v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 10, 1977
348 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

Witko v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY WITKO, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Aug 10, 1977

Citations

348 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing Cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Pierce

As stated in Farley, supra, section 627.733(4) does not make the uninsured owner an insurer, so there is no…