CopyCited 63 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 120, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 86, 2000 WL 144188
...WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion. WELLS, J., dissenting. I dissent. I conclude that this issue should be decided by the simple and straightforward recognition that a motor vehicle that is covered by a certificate of self-insurance in accord with section
324.031(4), Florida Statutes (1999), [6] and is thereby a self-insured motor vehicle, is, for the purposes of the Financial Responsibility Law, precisely what it is stated to bean insured motor vehicle, not an uninsured motor vehicle. Pursuant to section
627.727, Florida Statutes (1999), a self- insured motor vehicle that meets the requirements of section
324.031(4), is just as much an "insured" motor vehicle as one covered by a motor vehicle liability policy pursuant to section
324.031(1)....
...ent with the policy basis for the landmark case of Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,
252 So.2d 229 (Fla.1971). In Mullis this Court said: In sum, our holding is that uninsured motorist coverage prescribed by Section 627.0851 [now
324.031] is statutorily intended to provide the reciprocal or mutual equivalent of automobile liability coverage prescribed by the Financial Responsibility Law, i.e., to say coverage where an uninsured motorist negligently inflicts bodily injury or d...
...t does not have liability insurance meeting the minimum requirements of the financial responsibility law. It is axiomatic that a qualified self-insurance plan meets the minimum requirements of the financial responsibility law. This is precisely what section 324.031, Florida Statutes (1999), states: Manner of proving financial responsibility....
...as defined in ss.
324.021(8) and
324.151; [or] . . . . (4) Furnishing a certificate of self-insurance issued by the department in accordance with s.
324.171. Therefore, the policy reasoning of Mullis is met by self-insurance meeting the requirements section
324.031(4), which complies with the statute just as much as a commercial policy meeting the requirements of section
324.031(1)....
...The City chose to be self-insured and maintains coverage through its Risk Management Department. Thus, under section
768.28(13), the City qualifies as a self-insurer against tort liability. Gabriel argues that the City's failure to obtain the certificate described in sections
324.031 and
324.171, Florida Statutes (1979), left it uninsured and entitles him to recover uninsured motorist benefits....
...Finally, this Court's decisions in Lipof v. Florida Power & Light Co.,
596 So.2d 1005 (Fla.1992), and Diversified Services v. Avila,
606 So.2d 364 (Fla.1992), do not support the incongruous result that, while a self-insured motor vehicle qualified under section
324.031(4), Florida Statutes, is not an underinsured motor vehicle, the vehicle is an uninsured motor vehicle....
...Motorists can prove compliance with the financial responsibility law by purchasing a commercial insurance policy or by obtaining a certificate of self-insurance issued by the Department of Insurance, as well as through other statutorily approved methods. See §
324.031, Fla. Stat. (1995). Similarly, motorists can meet the insurance requirements of the Florida Motor Vehicle No Fault Law by self-insuring as authorized by section
324.031(4) or, with regard to governmental entities, as authorized by section
768.28(15)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 28198
...Before BIRCH, Circuit Judge, and RONEY and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judges. CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge: 1 Plaintiffs-appellees, for-profit passenger transportation companies and the risk retention group from which they purchase insurance, challenge the validity of Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031, which requires owners and operators of for-hire transportation vehicles to prove financial responsibility by maintaining certain specified insurance coverage. Specifically, plaintiffs-appellees contend that Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 violates and is preempted by the federal Liability Risk Retention Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 3901-3906 . On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court agreed with plaintiffs-appellees and permanently enjoined enforcement of Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031. Because we find that Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 is precisely the type of state law that Congress expressly excepted from the preemption provisions of the Liability Risk Retention Act, we reverse....
...) are for-hire passenger transportation companies. 1 Both Mears and Ashtin are members of and purchase insurance from plaintiff-appellee Paratransit Risk Retention Group of Maryland, Inc. ("Paratransit"). Plaintiffs-appellees challenge Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031, which is entitled, "Manner of proving financial responsibility." More specifically, they challenge the Florida legislature's 1992 amendment to this statute, Session Law 92-29. They contend that they are entitled to continue to prove financial responsibility as they did before the 1992 amendment. 3 Prior to the 1992 amendment, Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 permitted the operator or owner of any vehicle, including for-hire passenger transportation vehicles, to demonstrate financial responsibility by posting a bond or deposit equal to the number of vehicles owned times $25,000, up to a maximum of...
...2 Thus, section 342.031 permitted owners of for-hire passenger transportation vehicles, such as Mears and Ashtin, to self-insure the first $25,000 of liability, with the bond or deposit available to insure payment of claims within this $25,000 layer of self-insurance. Mears and Ashtin both complied with section 324.031 by posting a $100,000 certificate of deposit with the State of Florida and by purchasing excess liability coverage from Paratransit....
...3 In 1991, Mears operated 502 vehicles; 4 thus, Mears had less than $200 per vehicle on deposit to insure payment of claims within the $25,000 layer of self-insurance. Ashtin, which operated 72 units in 1992, 5 had less than $1400 per vehicle on deposit. 4 In 1992, the Florida legislature amended section 324.031 with Session Law 92-29. As amended, section 324.031 requires the owners and operators of for-hire passenger transportation vehicles to prove financial responsibility by maintaining insurance covering the first dollar of liability per accident up to $30,000 combined single limits; this insurance must be purchased from "an insurance carrier which is a member of the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association." 6 By so amending section 324.031, the Florida legislature sought to provide persons injured in for-hire passenger transportation vehicles with the protection of the state insurance guaranty fund. Thus, section 324.031 effectively (1) prevents the owners and operators of for-hire passenger transportation vehicles from self-insuring the first $30,000 in liabilities, and (2) precludes those insurance carriers that are not members of the Florida Insura...
...n-member insurance carriers includes, among many others, 7 risk retention groups. 8 Owners and operators of for-hire passenger transportation vehicles may choose to purchase insurance coverage for liabilities in excess of the first $30,000; however, section 324.031 does not require or otherwise regulate such excess insurance coverage....
...9 5 After the Florida legislature passed Session Law 92-29, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles notified both Mears and Ashtin that their financial responsibility certificates would be canceled if they did not comply with Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 as amended....
...Shortly thereafter, Paratransit, Mears, and the companies for which Mears oversees insurance needs 10 filed this lawsuit against Fred O. Dickinson, III, as Executive Director of the State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. 11 Plaintiffs alleged that Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 as amended was in conflict with the federal Liability Risk Retention Act, which exempts risk retention groups from certain state regulation....
...sfy financial responsibility, the Session Law plainly discriminates against risk retention groups." 14 Relying on this finding of discrimination, the district court rejected plaintiffs' argument that financial responsibility laws, like Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031, were expressly excepted from the Liability Risk Retention Act's preemption provisions. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and permanently enjoined defendant from enforcing Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 as amended against plaintiffs. 15 Dickinson appealed. 6 Thereafter, Paratransit and Ashtin filed a similar suit against Dickinson. Relying on the district court's decision in the Mears case, Paratransit and Ashtin sought to enjoin Dickinson from enforcing Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 as amended against Ashtin. Upon joint stipulation of the parties, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their Liability Risk Retention Act claim and permanently enjoined Dickinson from enforcing Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 against plaintiffs....
...16 Dickinson appealed. The two appeals, from the district court's decision in the Mears case and from the district court's decision in the Ashtin case, were consolidated by order of this court. DISCUSSION 7 The issue before us is whether Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 as amended, which specifies the manner by which owners and operators of for-hire passenger transportation vehicles may prove financial responsibility, is preempted by the federal Liability Risk Retention Act. Because we find that Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 as amended is precisely the type of state financial responsibility law that Congress expressly excepted from the preemption provisions of the Liability Risk Retention Act, we reverse....
...ties subject to state, county, and city licensure laws. By so doing, Congress evidenced its intent to preserve for the states the authority to utilize financial responsibility laws to protect the public. 18 The state law at issue here, Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031, is entitled, "Manner of proving financial responsibility." In 1992, the Florida legislature amended this statute to better protect the public. Under the former statute, Mears and Ashtin carried no insurance for the first $25,000 in liability and had for each vehicle less than $200 and $1400 respectively on deposit to insure payment of claims by injured persons. Under Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 as amended, persons injured in for-hire passenger transportation vehicles have the protection of insurance and of the state insurance guaranty fund....
...undertake specified activities. The subsection further provides that "[s]uch means may include or exclude insurance coverage obtained from an admitted insurance company, ... a risk retention group, or any other source...." By amending Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031, the Florida legislature specified an acceptable means for owners and operators of for-hire passenger transportation vehicles to demonstrate financial responsibility; this means includes insurance coverage obtained from members of the FIGA and excludes the first $30,000 of insurance coverage obtained from non-members, including risk retention groups. 27 Thus, Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 as amended falls squarely within the language of Sec....
...pplicability of State laws generally applicable to persons or corporations." It is upon this anti-discrimination provision that the district court rested its holding. The district court concluded that subsection 3905(d) does not except Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 from the Liability Risk Retention Act's preemption provisions because the state law discriminates against risk retention groups....
...rimination. Indeed, appellees have not at any time offered any evidence of discrimination. Contrary to the district court's conclusion, the record indicates a lack of discriminatory intent on the part of the Florida legislature. First, Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 as amended does not single out risk retention groups for preclusion; risk retention groups are one of many types of insurance carriers that are ineligible for membership in the FIGA. 28 Second, to the extent Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 precludes insurance obtained from a carrier that is not a member of FIGA, the preclusion is extremely narrow; it applies only to the owners and operators of for-hire passenger transportation vehicles and only to the first $30,000 in coverage....
...ve relief to prevent a financially impaired risk retention group from operating in the state. 31 Thus, the district court ignored principles of statutory construction and, thereby, misconstrued subsection 3905(d), which clearly excepts Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 from the preemption provision of the Risk Retention Liability Act....
...30, 1992. ORDER 40 This cause comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 34), filed October 13, 1992. Therein, Plaintiffs contend that recently-effective Florida Session Law 92-29, which amended Sec. 324.031, Florida Statutes (1992), violates the Liability Risk Retention Act, 15 U.S.C....
...42 Florida's motor vehicle financial responsibility laws, contained within Chapter 324, Florida Statutes, require motor vehicle owners and/or operators to provide financial security to recompense others for personal injury or property damage caused by operation of a motor vehicle. Prior to October 1, 1992, Sec. 324.031, Florida Statutes, governing the manner of providing financial responsibility, provided as follows: 43 The operator or owner of a vehicle may prove his financial responsibility by: 44 (1) Furnishing satisfactory evidence of holding a motor vehicle liability policy as defined in s....
...50 Florida Session Law 92-29, effective October 1, 1992, created a distinction in the financial responsibility laws between owners/operators of for-hire passenger transportation vehicles and owners/operators of motor vehicles in general. The Session Law, which amended Sec.
324.031, continued to allow owners/operators of other than for-hire passenger transportation vehicles to prove financial responsibility by the four methods set forth in Sec.
324.031(1)-(4). However, the Session Law changed Sec.
324.031 to provide that 51 [t]he owner or operator of a taxicab, limousine, jitney, or any other for-hire transportation vehicle may prove financial responsibility by providing satisfactory evidence of holding a motor vehicle liability policy as defined in s.
324.021(8) or s.
324.151, which policy is issued by an insurance carrier which is a member of the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association. 52 As amended, Sec.
324.031 thus prohibits owners/operators of for-hire passenger transportation vehicles from purchasing insurance from risk retention groups to satisfy financial responsibility, inasmuch as risk retention groups are not permitted to join the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association ("FIGA")....
...Dickinson, Middle District of Florida Case No. 92-632-CIV-ORL-22, are preceded by "Mears." The record citations that refer to the record in Ashtin Leasing, Inc. v. Fred O. Dickinson, Middle District of Florida Case No. 93-133-CIV-ORL-3A22, are preceded by "Ashtin.") 2 Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 (1991) (amended 1992) 3 Mears R1-11 at p 3; Ashtin R1-6 at p 3 4 Mears R1-11 Attachment 5 Ashtin R1-15 Exh. A 6 Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031; Fla.Stat....
...15 U.S.C. Sec. 3902 (a)(2) prevents risk retention groups from participating in state insurance guaranty funds 9 The counties and municipalities in Florida do require proof of insurance coverage in excess of the $30,000 minimum coverage required by section 324.031....
...ic Impact Statement for HB 1501, at 2 10 See note 1 11 Plaintiffs also named the state of Florida as a defendant, Mears R1-6, but subsequently voluntarily dismissed the state from the action. Mears R1-20 12 Plaintiffs also alleged that Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 as amended violated the state and federal equal protection clause and 42 U.S.C....
...veral very important powers." State of Florida, Department of Insurance v. National Amusement Purchasing Group, Inc.,
905 F.2d 361, 363-64 (11th Cir.1990) 26 Pub.L. No. 99-563, Sec. 8 , 100 Stat. 3170 , 3175-3176 27 As discussed above, Fla.Stat. ch.
324.031 as amended permits jitney operators to purchase insurance coverage in excess of $30,000 from risk retention groups or any other non-member carriers 28 See note 7 and text accompanying 29 Mears R4-78-7 30 E.g., Gonzalez v....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 117, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 243, 1992 WL 27891
...l deliverer. As part of an employment contract, Florida Power arranged for insurance coverage on Lipof's personal vehicle while he remained employed with Florida Power. In substance, Florida Power agreed to provide the following: (1) compliance with section
324.031, Florida Statutes (1983) (of the Florida Financial Responsibility Law); (2) compliance with sections
627.730-.7405, Florida Statutes (1983) (of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act [1] ); (3) excess indemnity protection, for...
...rage provided by the agreement. Florida Power moved for summary judgment on the basis that it did not owe Lipof the duty of offering uninsured motorist coverage because it is "not an insurer or insurance company as recognized by sections
627.733 and
324.031, Florida Statutes (1983), and because of [Florida Power's] status as a self-insurer." Lipof,
558 So.2d at 1067-1068....
...as indemnitor, surety, or contractor in the business of entering into contracts of insurance or of annuity." Lipof contends that Florida Power acted as an indemnitor through the employee vehicle agreement in three different ways: (1) compliance with section
324.031; (2) compliance with sections
627.730-.7405; and (3) providing $500,000 indemnification for bodily injury and property damage in addition to the fire and theft insurance....
...ility policy," and therefore, concludes it never owed Lipof the duty to offer uninsured motorist coverage. We first address Lipof's argument that the agreement became a "motor vehicle liability policy," because Florida Power provided compliance with section 324.031 of the Florida Financial Responsibility Law. Section 324.031 provides four methods for proving financial responsibility....
...fied in s.
324.021(7), or (3) Furnishing a certificate of the department showing a deposit of cash or securities in accordance with s.
324.161, or (4) Furnishing a certificate of self-insurance issued by the department in accordance with s.
324.171. §
324.031, Fla. Stat. (1983). Lipof contends that as the "owner or operator" of the vehicle he chose to use the agreement as a "motor vehicle liability policy," pursuant to section
324.031(1). Section
324.031(1) refers to sections
324.021(8) and
324.151, Florida Statutes (1983), which define the requirements for a "motor vehicle liability policy." Section
324.021(8) defines "motor vehicle liability policy" as "issued by any insurance compa...
...policies issued by insurance companies. Florida Power is not an insurance company authorized to do business in the state. Thus, the agreement cannot be characterized as a "motor vehicle liability policy" within the meaning of sections
324.021(8) or
324.031....
...licies, does not apply to Florida Power. Lipof acknowledges that Safeco Insurance Company of America issued him a "Florida Automobile Insurance Identification Card" indicating that he had "Bodily Injury Liability Coverage" pursuant to a surety bond. Section
324.031(2) provides that posting a surety bond is a means of proving financial responsibility. Agreeing to provide Lipof's compliance with section
324.031 through the surety bond with Safeco is not the same as "issuing" an insurance policy under section
324.021(8)....
...[3] *1008 Lipof's second argument is that the agreement became a "motor vehicle liability policy" because Florida Power provided for his compliance with the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law. Section
627.733(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), states that a person providing security authorized by section
324.031(2), (3), or (4) for compliance with the Florida No Fault Law has all the "obligations and rights of an insurer under ss....
...Consequently, the effect of Lipof's waiver was never made an issue to be resolved by this Court. Furthermore, our holding eliminates the need for us to address the validity of the waiver. [3] The Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed the issue of Florida Power's duty as a self-insurer. Under section 324.031(4), Florida Statutes (1983), a person may prove financial responsibility by furnishing a certificate of self-insurance issued by the department. The record before us does not reflect that Florida Power complied with section 324.031 in this manner. Thus, we do not reach the issue of whether the law requires a self-insured employer who offers an employee compliance with section 324.031 to also offer the employee uninsured motorist coverage.
