CopyCited 24 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 49, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 6, 1997 WL 22543
...RJT now claims that it is entitled to reimbursement for attorney fees and costs (exhibits indicate fees and costs in excess of $30,000) incurred in defending itself against the action pursued by Young. The trial court ruled in favor of Allstate. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed. The applicable statute is found in section 627.7263 of the Florida Statutes (1985). That statute reads: 627.7263 Rental and leasing driver's insurance to be primary; exception....
...not to be primary. As previously noted, the agreement between the rental car agency and Weinerth included a provision making Weinerth's insurance the primary coverage for the leased vehicle. That language was clearly authorized by the provisions of section 627.7263....
...Allstate, in this action, does not challenge the legislature's ability to authorize a shift in primary coverage. In fact, many cases have recognized the propriety of such a shift in situations where the correct contractual language was used. In Grant v. New Hampshire Insurance Co.,
613 So.2d 466, 470 (Fla. 1993), we stated: "Section
627.7263 merely allows the lessor of a Florida-registered motor vehicle to shift the burden of providing primary liability coverage to the lessee's insurance carrier when the lessee in fact has a primary liability insurance carrier." See also Southeastern Fidelity Ins....
...5th DCA 1991); International Ins. Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.,
555 So.2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied,
564 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1990). We agree with Allstate's contention that the legislature never intended, through the statutory language of section
627.7263, to allow lessors to shift the duty to defend....
...Those increased costs would certainly be passed along to lessees. We do not believe that the legislature intended such an outcome and, consequently, we refuse to read this result into the statute. Accordingly, we answer the rephrased question in the negative, finding that section 627.7263 does not require lessees to provide a defense to lessors after agreeing to assume responsibility for "primary coverage." [1] The decision of the district court is quashed....
...Under the common law, where the vehicle was offered for rent or lease, the owner's insurance would be primary up to the $10,000 financial responsibility limit. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fowler,
480 So.2d 1287 (Fla.1985). In 1976 the legislature adopted section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1977), which allowed the owner to shift that responsibility to the renter, provided the rental contract contained the appropriate statutory language....
...discharged,
198 So.2d 829 (Fla.1967), is directly on point in holding that the primary insurer has the duty to defend. While the duty to defend is contractual, Allstate had a duty to defend clause in its policy. Therefore, once Allstate became the primary insurer, it was obligated to defend. In enacting section
627.7263, there was no reason for the legislature to refer to the duty to defend because the duty to defend always follows the primary insurer....
...I respectfully dissent. HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] We limit our holding to the context of the instant case. We are solely interpreting the meaning of "primary coverage" (and consequently the requisite duty to defend) as it is used by the legislature in section 627.7263....
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 610, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 4099
..., the first layer of coverage must come from the insurer of the owner of the vehicle, the only exception being when a lease situation exists and the lessor has *1290 properly shifted the burden of primary insurance coverage to the lessee pursuant to section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981)....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...nsurance the owner of a vehicle is required to maintain under the financial responsibility laws of Florida, section
324.151(1)(a) and
324.021(7), Florida Statutes (1981), unless the lessor properly shifted the burden of primary insurance pursuant to section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981)....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 612, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 4098
...The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Maryland. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and ordered summary judgment in favor of Reliance. The issue of whether Reliance or Maryland is responsible for the primary layer of coverage is determined by section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981), which reads as follows: Rental and leasing driver's insurance to be primary; exception....
...Maryland cites Sunshine Dodge, Inc. v. Ketchem,
445 So.2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), in support of its argument that Reliance's primary coverage extends beyond the minimum $10,000, up to the full amount of the policy it issued to the lessor. The last sentence of subsection (1) of section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981), is determinative of the issue before us....
...It provides as follows: Such insurance shall be primary for the limits of liability and personal injury protection coverage as required by ss.
324.021(7) and
627.736. Words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Graham v. State,
362 So.2d 924 (Fla. 1978). The last sentence of subsection (1) of section
627.7263 states that the lessor's insurance is primary for the limits of liability and personal injury protection as required by ss.
324.021(7) and
627.736 (emphasis supplied). These sections require liability coverage of $10,000. Therefore, the plain meaning of section
627.7263 requires us to find that Reliance's insurance policy only provides primary insurance coverage for the first $10,000 regardless of the amount of the policy issued by Reliance to the lessor....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 80706
...Mead,
388 So.2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), that there ever was a common law right of action under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine in Florida against a long-term lessor of a motor vehicle. Mead involved "the sole question" of whether, notwithstanding the fact that section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (Supp....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...This is an interlocutory appeal from a summary judgment on a cross-claim holding that the lessee of a motor vehicle was obligated to provide primary liability insurance coverage on a rented vehicle notwithstanding the lessor's failure to comply with section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...ellant and his insurer alleging that the latter had primary coverage for the damages sought by Howard. The appellant answered the third-party complaint and affirmatively alleged that Lindo's rental agreement failed to comply with the requirements of section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1979), and therefore, the appellees were required to provide primary coverage up to American Southern's policy limits. Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1979), provides as follows: Rental and leasing driver's insurance to be primary; exception....
...the motor vehicle with the permission or consent of the rental or leasing driver shall be primary. Such insurance shall be primary for the limits of liability and personal injury protection coverage as required by Florida Statutes SS.
324.021(7) and
627.7263. The above-quoted portion of the rental agreement was no different in size or color from the rest of the agreement and was a quote from section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1976)....
...ty, *45 et cetera arising out of or in connection with any possession or use of the vehicle. American Southern's policy contained what is commonly known as an escape clause. The trial court found the notice on the agreement inadequate to comply with section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1979), but still entered a summary judgment finding that the parties had properly shifted the responsibility for primary coverage to the appellant and that Lindo's insurance policy contained a valid escape clause....
...ves as to which of them shall provide the primary liability insurance coverage without complying with the statute which makes the lessor primarily liable unless he follows a specific method of shifting that responsibility to the lessee. We hold that section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1979), provides the exclusive method of shifting primary liability coverage from the lessor to the lessee, and if the lessor fails to comply with the requirements of this section, he is primarily liable up to the f...
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...We recognize that this holding appears to be in conflict *505 with Ogur v. Mogel,
390 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The trial court found that Pennsylvania had primary coverage as the lessor's insurer because the rental agreement did not properly shift that burden to the lessee under section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981)....
...Similarly, the provision relied on is ineffective to relieve P & H's insurer from liability because coverage is provided in the insurance policy to the owner, which by the terms of the policy extends to the owner's lessee. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Day Car, Inc.,
395 So.2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Section
627.7263 provides a means by which the lessor may shift the obligation for primary coverage to the lessee, and that method was not followed here....
...a final judgment. COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Review of non-final orders of lower tribunals is limited to those which: (c) determine: ...... (iv) The issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief. [2] Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981): Rental and leasing driver's insurance to be primary; exception (1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicl...
...essee's insurance company's name if the lessor's insurance is not to be primary. [3] Instead, just above the place for the lessee's signature, in type no different than found elsewhere in the agreement, is this statement: "Notice Florida Statutes 627.7263 provides that the rental customer's automobile liability and personal injury insurance shall be primary." This is an incorrect statement of the law in effect when this agreement was signed....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...[1] Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson,
80 Fla. 441,
86 So. 629, 16 A.L.R. 255. [2] Susco Car Rental System of Florida v. Leonard, Fla. 1959,
112 So.2d 832; Fla.App. 1958,
103 So.2d 243. Martin v. Lloyd Motor Co.,
119 So.2d at 414-15. It should also be noted that section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981), provides that an automobile lessor's insurer is primarily liable unless the lease agreement states in bold type that the lessee has the responsibility for primary insurance coverage....
...Based on Martin, Sunshine, even as a bailee, is liable and its carrier has primary coverage. The partial summary judgment herein did not depart from essential requirements of law and, therefore, we deny the petition for certiorari. PETITION DENIED. DAUKSCH, J., and DIAMANTIS, G.N., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981), provides in relevant part: (1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...s taken. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. There were three insurance policies in issue. The first is a business automobile policy issued by Travelers to Enterprise with a policy limit of $10,000. Because that policy did not comply with section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981), the court found that this policy must provide the first layer of coverage....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...rly entered in favor of Biscayne because it was entitled to common law indemnity. Consequently, we must examine both aspects on appeal. [2] With respect to the coverage question, South Carolina contends that Biscayne did not sufficiently comply with Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1977) so as to shift its primary [statutory] responsibility from Biscayne and place it upon South Carolina....
...r the lessee's insurance company's name if the lessor's insurance is not to be primary. *218 From an inspection of the lease agreement between Biscayne and Oliver, it is apparent that Biscayne, which admittedly drafted the lease, did not comply with Section 627.7263, supra....
...A more substantial defect is the insufficiency of the contents of the notice to effectively inform the lessee that his insurer, if he has one, will be primarily responsible for any claim against the use and operation of the vehicle. The notice states: NOTICE Florida Statutes 627.7263 provides that the rental customer's automobile liability and personal injury insurance shall be primary....
...[3] A lessee reading the notice provided by Biscayne would believe that, by statute, his own insurer is responsible. The lessee is not informed that, to the contrary, he is contracting for a responsibility not otherwise required by law. [4] In order to satisfy the requirements of Section 627.7263, supra, we find that the lessee must be clearly informed that his insurance carrier will be responsible for any claim against the lessee during the use and operation of the vehicle....
...furnish insurance, then the lessor will be denied indemnity. Truck Discount Corporation v. Serrano,
362 So.2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Morse Auto Rentals, Inc. v. Lewis,
161 So.2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). As a result of the defective compliance with Section
627.7263, supra, the lessee necessarily contracted for Biscayne to provide liability insurance coverage as part of the rental agreement....
...[2] In Cerniglia v. C & D Farms,
203 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1967), the Court held that the appellee may advance reasons to support the judgment under attack which are different from those given by the lower court without filing a cross-assignment of error. [3] Section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.) provided that the lessee's insurance would be primary....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2892, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6980, 1989 WL 150080
...This is an appeal of an order establishing primary insurance coverage. The appellant contends the language in a provision of an automobile lease agreement purporting to shift the burden of providing primary insurance coverage to the lessee's insurer fails to comply with section 627.7263, Florida Statutes. Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, provides: (1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 456, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2585
...Reliance Insurance Co.,
478 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1985), to the facts of this case. The insurer of the owner/lessor must provide the first $10,000 worth of coverage unless the owner/lessor has properly shifted the burden of primary insurance to the lessee pursuant to section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1197, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7958
...Simmons' claim. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied Canal's motion and granted Continental's. This appeal followed. The issue whether Canal or Continental is responsible for the primary level of coverage is determined by section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1977)....
...In the case before us, the lease agreement between Turner and Wimpy contains no such statement purporting to shift primary responsibility from Turner, the lessor. Accordingly, we find that Canal, as the primary insurer of the lessor Turner, must provide the first $10,000 of coverage pursuant to section 627.7263....
...2d DCA 1981) (on grounds of public policy, a clause in a contract which violates a statutory provision is nugatory); 11 Fla. Jur.2d Contracts sec. 83 (1979). The PSC regulation was not abrogated when, in chapter 77-48, Laws of Florida, the legislature adopted the 1977 version of section 627.7263....
...We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for entry of a judgment which allocates the responsibility for coverage as follows: 1. Canal in the amount of $10,000. 2. Continental in the amount of $65,000. SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.7263, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Maryland's policy covers amounts in excess of $10,000. Maryland claims that Reliance's primary coverage extended to the full limit of its policy. The parties do not dispute the facts. The only question presented concerns the proper interpretation of Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981); (1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
...not to be primary. Reliance contends that the last sentence of subsection (1) requires the lessor to provide primary coverage for only $10,000, the minimum amount of liability insurance required by sections
324.021(7) and
627.736, Florida Statutes. Section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (Supp....
...ts. The statute clearly states: "Such insurance shall be primary for the limits and liability of personal injury protection as required by Section
324.021(7) and
627.736." (emphasis added) Therefore, we hold that Reliance has primary liability under Section
627.7263, Florida Statutes, limited to $10,000 and accordingly we reverse the final summary judgment in favor of Maryland and remand with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of Reliance....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...ed to provide primary insurance coverage because of the terms of the lease, which included the obligation to defend the main action. [1] Ready answered the cross-claim and asserted that notwithstanding the lease terms, because of the requirements of section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (Supp....
...SHARP, J., and BAKER, JOSEPH P., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] It was not stated in the cross claim nor in the final judgment appealed from whether the damage claim had a value in excess of the limits mentioned in the lease agreement between the parties. [2] Section 627.7263 Rental and leasing driver's insurance primary....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10480, 1991 WL 213267
...District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. October 24, 1991. *37 Michael A. Romano of Drage, deBeaubien, Knight & Simmons, Orlando, for appellant. A. Craig Cameron of Cameron, Marriott, Walsh & Hodges, P.A., Orlando, for appellee. COWART, Judge. Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, provides: Rental and leasing driver's insurance to be primary; exception (1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicl...
...d type, informing the lessee of the provisions of subsection (1) and shall provide a space for the name of the lessee's insurance company if the lessor's insurance is not to be primary. The motor vehicle rental agreement in this case states: Notice: Section 627.7263 of the Florida Statutes (1979) provides liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 40950
...de the "first layer of coverage" of $10,000 required by the financial responsibility statutes, sections
324.021(7) and
324.151(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On its face, the lease agreement between GMAC and the Thompsons complied with the requirements of section
627.7263, Florida Statutes, and shifted primary coverage from GMAC to the Thompsons' insurers up to their full policy limits....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 299790
...Miami Stage and Laureano filed a third-party complaint against Budget seeking a declaration that Budget's liability insurer was the primary insurer of the vehicle. Defendants argued that the risk-shifting *1136 clause in Budget's rental agreement did not comply with the section 627.7263(2), Florida Statute (1993), requirements sufficiently to shift the burden of primary insurance coverage to Miami Stage....
...Both parties moved for summary judgment on this issue. The trial court granted Budget's motion, finding that the rental agreement between Budget and Miami Stage complied with the statute. The trial court erred in granting Budget's motion. The risk-shifting clause did not satisfy the requirements of section 627.7263(2), necessary to shift the burden of primary insurance coverage to Miami Stage. Section 627.7263(2), Florida Statute (1993), [1] provides: (1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
...NSIBILITY LIMITS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW AFTER PAYMENT OF ALL INSURANCE AND PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO THE AUTHORIZED DRIVER. We are not persuaded by Budget's argument that this clause is sufficient to alert the lessee that its insurance is primary. Section 627.7263, permits lessors to shift the burden of providing primary insurance coverage for leased vehicles to lessees. However, to shift the burden, pursuant to section 627.7263(2), the rental agreements must inform the "lessee of the provisions of subsection (1)...." § 627.7263(2). Nowhere in Budget's clause is the lessee alerted to the existence of the statute. All clauses that have been held sufficient to shift this burden, at a minimum, inform the lessee that the lessee bears the burden pursuant to section 627.7263....
...ting the statute's words or adding words not placed there by the legislature. Gretz v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n,
572 So.2d 1384 (Fla.1991); Reyf v. Reyf,
620 So.2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Adopting Budget's argument would mean deleting the
627.7263(2) requirement that the risk-shifting clause inform "the lessee of the provisions of subsection (1)...." Contrary to Budget's argument, Allstate Ins....
...insurance was governed by statute. That clause read: "This rental agreement requires the valid and collectible liability and personal injury protection insurance of the renter or driver to be primary for their policy limits as per ss.
324.021(7) and
627.7263." [2] (Emphasis added)....
...In compliance with that contract provision, the lessee's liability insurer issued a rider specifically naming the lessor as an insured. As a result, it was unnecessary for the Sentry court to reach the issue of whether the agreement passed muster under section
627.7263, Sentry,
425 So.2d at 654; the Sentry lessee's insurance had specifically included the lessor as an insured....
...Based on the foregoing analysis, we reverse the summary judgment in Budget's favor, and remand for entry of summary judgment in defendant's favor. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] The 1993 version of this section applies here as the accident occurred in November 1994. We note, however, that section 627.7263(2), Florida Statutes, was amended, effective July 1, 1995, to attempt to resolve these questions involving "risk shifting" clauses in the future....
...of N.A.,
508 So.2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gulf Coast Home Health Servs. of Fla., Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehab. Servs.,
503 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). [3] The Interamerican clause reads as follows: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION TO FLORIDA STATUTE
627.7263 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THIS RENTAL AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT THE VALID AND COLLECTIBLE LIABILITY AND PERSONAL INJURY INSURANCE OF THE RENTER OR ANY OTHER PERSON OPERATING THIS MOTOR VEHICLE WITH THE RENTER'S CONSENT SHALL BE PRIMARY....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...In essence, the declaratory relief count sought clarification on the following issues: 1. Whether as owner and lessor of the vehicle in question, H-K Leasing properly shifted the burden of primary insurance coverage to U.S.A.A., as third-party defendant, pursuant to section 627.7263, Florida Statutes; 2....
...insurance policy to them and that, as beneficiaries of said policy, they were entitled to coverage for the claims asserted against them. Additionally, it was alleged that the rental agreement shifted or assigned primary insurance coverage to U.S.A.A., as Hagen's carrier, pursuant to statute. See section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1987)....
...d to provide coverage for your operation of the vehicle. The rental agreement between H-K Leasing and Bruce Hagen manifests an intent to shift the burden of primary insurance coverage to Hagen's carrier, U.S.A.A., pursuant to the applicable statute, section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1987), which provides: (1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
...lessee of the provisions of subsection (1) and shall provide a space for the name of the lessee's insurance company if the lessor's insurance company is not to be primary. The rental agreement expressly states the following: NOTICE: Florida Statute 627.7263 provides that the rental/lease customer's liability or personal injury insurance is primary Insurance Company or Agent USAA Policy # XXXXXXXXXXXX Phone # Notwithstanding the shift of primary coverage, however, we believe the trial court p...
...y is to be imposed in instances such as the case sub judice, the language of the statute should clearly provide imposition of liability notwithstanding any exclusions to the contrary. See Grant v. New Hampshire Insur. Co.,
613 So.2d 466 (Fla. 1993) (section
627.7263 does not authorize an insured to unilaterally convert policy providing umbrella liability coverage into one providing primary coverage by merely entering into car rental agreement that purports to shift primary liability to the lessee's auto insurance carrier); Southeastern Fidelity Insur....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 331407
...e line: The lessee's/renter's insurance carrier will be primarily responsible for any claim against the lessee/renter and/or lessor during the use and operation of the vehicle. The lessee is contracting for a responsibility not otherwise required by section 627.7263(1), Florida Statutes. Section 627.7263(1), provides: (1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type face on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
...The coverage of the lessee's/renter's insurance carrier will be primary to the full extent of its liability limits. The name of the lessee's/renter's insurance company is: ... [no company name provided]. The first issue here is whether or not this language sufficiently complies with section 627.7263(1), Florida Statutes *1374 (1991), which provides in pertinent part that "[t]he valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease...
...3d DCA 1991), rev. denied,
598 So.2d 75 (Fla. 1992). We have previously explained the requirements that must be met for statutory compliance. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Credit Co.,
616 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The purpose of section
627.7263(1) is to permit the lessor of an automobile to shift primary liability for the leased vehicle to the lessee's insurance carrier, thus rendering its own insurance secondary....
...Co.,
613 So.2d 466, 469-70 (Fla. 1993); see also Bankers and Shippers Ins. Co. of New York v. Phoenix Assur. Co. of New York,
210 So.2d 715, 718-19 (Fla. 1968). By the same reasoning we conclude that where the burden of primary coverage is not shifted under section
627.7263 because the lessee has no primary insurance, the lessor remains responsible for providing primary insurance coverage....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2468, 1993 WL 63490
...from an adverse summary final judgment entered in a declaratory judgment action brought by the plaintiff Safeway Insurance Company as the insurer of a lessee of an automobile leased from the defendant. At issue is whether a provision in the rental contract between the lessee and the defendant adequately complied with Section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1989), [1] so as to make the lessee's insurer the primary insurer of the leased automobile. The subject lease provision, which is printed in bold capital letters, states: "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION TO FLORIDA STATUTE
627.7263 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THIS RENTAL AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT THE VALID AND COLLECTIBLE LIABILITY AND PERSONAL INJURY INSURANCE OF THE RENTER, OR ANY OTHER PERSON OPERATING THIS MOTOR VEHICLE WITH THE RENTER'S CONSENT SHALL BE PRIMARY. RENTER IS CONTRACTING THAT THEIR INSURANCE IS TO BE PRIMARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID STATUTE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE
324.021(7)." We conclude that this provision fully complies with Section
627.7263 because (a) it clearly states in bold type that the lessee is contracting that his/her insurance carrier will be the primary liability insurance carrier on the rented automobile, and (b) Florida courts have held that such a provision fully complies with the statute....
...(2) Each rental or lease agreement between the Lessee and the Lessor shall contain a provision on the face of the agreement, stated in bold type, informing the Lessee of the provisions of subsection (1) and shall provide a space for the name of the Lessee's insurance company if the Lessor's insurance is not to be primary." § 627.7263, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 470840
...ive, not Enterprise, was liable. Progressive appealed to the circuit court which affirmed. We grant Progressive's petition for certiorari because the circuit court failed to apply the correct law. Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
774 So.2d 679 (Fla.2000). Section
627.7263(1), Florida Statutes (2002), makes the liability and PIP coverage of a lessor such as Enterprise primary, unless the rental agreement states otherwise....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18818
...orcycle operated by Charles Lobsiger. Lobsiger filed suit against the driver, Dolime, Murphy, and Hartford. Hartford undertook the defense. Thereafter Hartford cross-claimed for a declaratory decree that Sentry's policy exclusion was void because of section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981), and therefore Sentry was the primary insurer of the vehicle and had the duty to defend....
...Hartford subsequently settled Lobsiger's claims and the cause proceeded on Hartford's cross-claim. The trial court ultimately ruled that Sentry's coverage was primary and Hartford's coverage was secondary and held Sentry liable to Hartford for the full amount of the settlement. We reverse. Section 627.7263 [1] provides that insurance for a lessor shall be primary unless otherwise stated in "bold type" on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
...provide insurance. A substantial portion of the argument in this appeal by both sides was directed to the issue whether or not the insurance paragraph was in "bold type," to make lessee the primary insurance provider in derogation of Florida Statute
627.7263. In reviewing the trial court's decision it is unnecessary to become embroiled in this contention. Resolution lies elsewhere. We have held that section
627.7263 provides a means by which the lessor may shift the obligation for primary coverage to the lessee. P & H Vehicle Rental, Etc. v. Garner,
416 So.2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). See also Racecon, Inc. v. Mead,
388 So.2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (construing section
627.7263 prior to its amendment in 1977, providing that lessee's insurance would be primary). The legislature intended to protect unwary lessees of motor vehicles from *654 responsibility of providing insurance unless their liability was conspicuously designated in "bold type" under requirements of the present section
627.7263....
...otor vehicle lease? In Racecon, this court discussed the right of parties to contract freely to provide insurance coverage required by applicable statutes. Such right to contract was held to be proper if the public policy of the state was satisfied. Section 627.7263 was construed so as to permit the lessor to provide primary coverage through the doctrine of contractual freedom....
...The record is clear Hartford contractually undertook to provide both the primary coverage mandated to be furnished by the lessor (Murphy) and the lessee's contractual obligation to furnish insurance under the lease agreement. Obligatory features of section 627.7263 were met by Hartford's policy of insurance covering both lessor and lessee....
...to other available coverage. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address other points on appeal. The final judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for Sentry. REVERSED AND REMANDED. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 627.7263 provides, in part: (1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4215, 1993 WL 114657
...action brought by the liability insurer to determine an issue of coverage of the insured defendant in the personal injury action. In ruling that the consolidation was improper, this court stated: The legislature, in enacting the nonjoinder statute [§ 627.7263, Fla....
...Stat.], has apparently found that those concerns (the possibility, inter alia, of inconsistent verdicts in two separate actions) do *782 not overcome the danger that jurors may be influenced if they know the defendant has liability insurance coverage. Id. at 1023. We recognize that, in Nail, this court was considering section
627.7263 a nonjoinder statute, and, in the instant case, we are considering section
627.727(6) a required joinder statute....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1102
...Executive and Industrial appeal the order of responsibility determined by the trial judge. Appellants concede that it is their statutory obligation to provide primary insurance coverage, but argue that the lease agreement between Executive and Action shifts that duty to Action and thus to its insurance carrier, Commercial. Section 627.7263(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides: The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 567
...Where the active tortfeasor does not own the motor vehicle, the first layer of coverage must be provided by the insurer of the owner of the vehicle. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Fowler,
480 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 1985). The only exception to this rule is when a lease situation exists and the lessor, pursuant to section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1977), has properly shifted the burden of primary insurance coverage to the lessee. Fowler. In this case, the owner/lessor and its insurer, Southeastern, concede that the lease agreement did not comply with section
627.7263 and that Southeastern must therefore provide the first layer of coverage. This responsibility is limited, however, to $10,000 per person, the amount required by the financial responsibility law. §
627.7263; Fowler; Metropolitan Property & Life Insurance Co....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2055
...(1987). Since this golf cart is not a motor vehicle for the purposes of financial responsibility or no-fault coverage, the statutory provision which makes the lessor's coverage primary for these purposes is not applicable to the rental of this golf cart. § 627.7263, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 120358
...Clark and Frances F. Guasch of Barnett, Clark & Barnard, Miami, for appellant. Linda R. Spaulding of Conrad, Scherer, James & Jenne, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees. KLEIN, Judge. This case involves the issue of whether the notice in an automobile lease complied with section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1984), so as to make lessee's insurer primary. Section 627.7263 provided: (1) The valid and collectible insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
...the agreement, stated in bold type, informing the lessee of the provisions of subsection (1) and shall provide a space for the name of lessee's insurance company if the lessor's insurance is not to be primary. The lease provided: NOTICE: PURSUANT TO SECTION
627.7263, FLORIDA STATUTES, LESSOR AND LESSEE AGREE THAT THE LIABILITY INSURANCE OR PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION INSURANCE OF LESSEE OR OTHER PERMITTED OPERATOR OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PRIMARY FOR THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY AND PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION COVERAGE REQUIRED BY SECTIONS
324.021(7) AND
627.736, FLORIDA STATUTES....
...Lessor's insurer relies on International Bankers Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc.,
553 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The notice in the lease in that case contained language similar to the notice in the present case, except there was no reference to section
627.7263. Since the statute requires that the lessee must be informed of provisions of section
627.7263, we cannot agree with the conclusion of the fifth district that the notice is sufficient so long as the lessee is "informed by bold type notice that the lessee's insurance is to be primary." Id., 741....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 174457
...ary insurance coverage to Henderson. American alleged that Commerce was obligated to provide primary coverage based on the following language found in bold type in the rental agreement between American and Henderson: NOTICE TO RENTER FLORIDA STATUTE 627.7263(1) PROVIDES THAT "THE VALID AND COLLECTIBLE LIABILITY INSURANCE OR PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION INSURANCE PROVIDING COVERAGE FOR THE LESSOR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR RENT OR LEASE SHALL BE PRIMARY UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN BOLD TYPE ON THE FACE OF THE RENTAL OR LEASE AGREEMENT....
...[2] Following a hearing, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of American finding that "the bold type language contained at the bottom of the lease provision ... effectively shifted the burden for providing the primary liability coverage to Henderson's carrier." In enacting section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1986), the legislature created an exception to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine by allowing lessors who lease Florida-registered vehicles to shift the obligation for primary insurance coverage to the lessee b...
...early informed that his insurance carrier would be responsible for any claim against the lessee during use and operation of the vehicle. See Guemes v. Biscayne Auto Rentals, Inc.,
414 So.2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (in order to satisfy requirements of section
627.7263, lessee must be informed that his insurance carrier will be responsible)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 5076101, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18272
...n the policy endorsement. Thus, according to Patterson, the exclusion does not apply and by the terms of the body of the insurance policy, Drop Ship and Gutierrez, as permissive users, are named insureds under the policy. Harco, however, argues that section 627.7263 does not apply because it has been preempted by the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C....
...The specified language is as follows: "The valid and collectible liability insurance and personal injury protection insurance of any authorized rental or leasing driver is primary for the limits of liability and personal injury protection coverage required by ss.
324.021(7) and
627.736, Florida Statutes.” §
627.7263(2)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4217, 1990 WL 79110
...Later that day, Gray was involved in an automobile accident with Jody Bass. Bass filed suit against Gray and Major. Gray cross-claimed against Major alleging that the rental agreement purporting to shift the burden of providing primary insurance coverage to Gray's insurer failed to comply with section 627.7263 and thus primary financial responsibility remained with Major. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the question of primary coverage. The trial court concluded that the rental agreement complied with the boldface type requirements of section 627.7263 and therefore Gray and his insurer had primary responsibility for coverage. Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1987) provides as follows: 627.7263 Rental and leasing driver's insurance to be primary; exception....
...ain a provision on the face of the agreement, stated in bold type, informing *177 the lessee of the provisions of subsection (1) and shall provide a space for the name of the lessee's insurance company if the lessor's insurance is not to be primary. Section 627.7263 mandates that the insurance policy providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle is primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement....
...Snappy Car Rental,
553 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The purpose of this statute is to protect unwary lessees of motor vehicles from the responsibility of providing insurance unless their liability was conspicuously designated in "bold type" under the requirements of section
627.7263....
...Snappy Car Rental , the rental agreement provided, in bold type, that the "insurance ... for the rental or leasing driver ... shall be primary." This court held that the rental agreement clearly informed the lessee that his liability insurance was primary and met the requirements of section 627.7263....
...Lindo's Rent-a-Car, Inc.,
415 So.2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the rental agreement contained the same language as in Snappy Car Rental. However, this portion of the rental agreement was no different in size or color from the rest of the agreement. The court noted that section
627.7263 provides the exclusive method of shifting primary liability coverage from the lessor to the lessee and concluded that the rental agreement did not meet the requirements of the statute....
...See Guemes,
414 So.2d at 218 n. 5. Since the type of the provision is neither larger nor heavier than the type used in the remainder of the agreement and the provision does not state that the insurance of the lessee will be primary, the rental agreement does not comply with section
627.7263. Where the owner of a leased or rented vehicle has not properly shifted the burden of primary insurance coverage to the lessee under section
627.7263, the owner's primary obligation is for the first layer of coverage....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10148, 2003 WL 21511326
...s request for recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. Anthony’s position is predicated on a ruling by the trial court that Alamo’s rental contract failed to shift primary liability under Florida’s Financial Responsibility Act to Robert. Under section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, the lessor’s liability insurance is primary unless the rental agreement validly shifts primary responsibility to the lessee....
...imposes ultimate liability and duty to defend on an active tortfeasor. However, that doctrine can not apply when it would operate to frustrate the specific purpose or statute which imposes primary liability and duty to defend on a specific party. That is exactly what Fla. Stat. § 627.7263 does....
...The undisputed facts are that this case never exceeded that initial threshold and has now been settled with no consequence to [Robert], The duty to pay the damages, as well [as] the complete duty to defend, rested with Alamo by the specific language of the statute. Where properly invoked, section
627.7263 provides that the lessee and not the lessor is responsible for providing primary liability insurance on a leased vehicle and that the lessee’s insurer will defend its insured in any suit against the lessee. Allstate Insurance Co. v. RJT Enterprises, Inc.,
692 So.2d 142 (Fla.1997); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. InterAmerican Car Rental, Inc.,
707 So.2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). 3 Where a lessor fails to properly invoke the provisions of section
627.7263, the lessor and its insurer (if any) remain primarily responsible for damages caused as a result of negligence in the use of the vehicle....
...ection
627.4136(2). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED. THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur. . Attorney's fees incurred in establishing the right to indemnification, however, are not recoverable. Continental Casualty,
807 So.2d at 93 . . Under section
627.7263, the lessor’s liability insurance is primary unless the rental agreement shifts primary responsibility to the lessee by a notice in at least ten point type on the face of the rental agreement....
...This shifting of responsibility for the duty to indemnify to the extent of the financial responsibility requirements of law to the lessee’s insurer does not encompass a duty on the part of the lessee's insurance carrier to defend the lessor. RJT at 145 ("section 627.7263 does not require lessees to provide a defense to lessors after agreeing to assume responsibility for ‘primary coverage’ ”)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 117, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11810
...bursement for all it paid to Bennet. Allstate's argument is twofold: one, that the lessor's insurance was "primary" up to the limits of its coverage and; two, that lessor did not properly shift the primary responsibility to the lessee as required by section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1983)....
...In the case at bar the lessor was not actively negligent in causing the accident; its liability is solely on account of its being the owner of the vehicle. The lessee was the real cause of the accident; the active tortfeasor. His coverage is primary because, among other things, his fault is primary. Florida Statute 627.7263 regulates insurance coverage priorities....
...limits are paid out. This issue was addressed, however, by the Florida Supreme Court in Insurance Company of North America (INA) v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc.,
348 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 1977). Although this decision was not concerned with the effect of section
627.7263, the opinion is nevertheless instructive because it discusses the effect of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine and the financial responsibility law on a rental agency's right to indemnification from a negligent lessee....
...erating the motor vehicle with the permission or consent of the rental or leasing driver shall be primary. Such insurance shall be primary for the limits of liability and personal injury protection coverage as required by ss.
324.021(7),
627.736 and
627.7263, Florida Statutes....
...per use of said car. The lessee contends, and the lessor implicitly concedes, that the provision on the face of the rental agreement was insufficient to shift primary responsibility to the lessee because it was not stated in bold type as required by section 627.7263(1)....
...This is apparently the reason why the lessor agreed in the settlement with the plaintiff to pay the first $20,000 (representing $10,000 for financial responsibility and $10,000 for P.I.P.). However, the parties disagree as to the other consequences of this failure to comply with section 627.7263(1)....
...In support of this argument, he cites P & H Vehicle Rental and Leasing Corporation v. Garner,
416 So.2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), disapproved on other grounds Travelers Insurance Company v. Bruns,
443 So.2d 959 (Fla. 1984), in which this court ruled that the failure of the lessor in that case to comply with section
627.7263 made the lessor primarily liable for losses arising out of the use of its rental vehicle and there was no discussion of financial responsibility or policy limits....
...In P & H, however, the lessor's insurer's claim that it was entitled to indemnification by the lessee's insurer was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, we think P & H is not dispositive on the issue of whether a lessor who does not comply with section 627.7263 could legally shift responsibility for coverage beyond the financial responsibility and P.I.P....
...Instead, the dispositive cases on this issue are Racecon, Inc. v. Mead,
388 So.2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and Patton v. Lindo's Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
415 So.2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Racecon is a case in which the lessee prevailed on the facts but under the current version of section
627.7263, the rule of law which flows from the case will benefit lessors....
...In Racecon, the injured third party sued the lessee and the lessor, and prior to trial, the lessor crossclaimed against the lessee for indemnification. Although the rental agreement contemplated that the lessor was obligated to provide primary insurance coverage, the lessor argued that section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, as it existed in 1976 required the lessee's insurance to be primary notwithstanding the terms of the rental agreement....
...out of or in connection with any possession or use of the vehicle. The court stated that because the paragraph shifting primary responsibility to the lessee was no different in size or color than the rest of the agreement, it was insufficient under section 627.7263 to shift primary responsibility....
...is the active tortfeasor, the lessee's insurer provides primary liability coverage and the lessor's insurer provides secondary coverage in the absence of a statute or applicable policy provision or an effective provision in the rental agreement. [4] Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, statutorily changes the above rule and provides that, with several exceptions and limitations, the lessor's valid, collectible and applicable liability and PIP insurance is primary....
...See, e.g., Sunshine Dodge, Inc. v. Ketchem,
445 So.2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). [6] The reason that, once the financial responsibility requirements are satisfied, the driver and his insurer assume responsibility for excess coverage is not because the statute (§
627.7263) specifically so provides, as the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in Reliance Insurance Company v....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1987 WL 1093
...The leasing agency had an insurance policy with Continental Insurance Co. Continental settled with the injured party for $60,000. Continental conceded that the rental agreement did not properly shift the burden of primary insurance coverage and it was responsible for the first $10,000 of damages. §
324.021(7) and §
627.7263, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2767, 2007 WL 601489
PER CURIAM. 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....
...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....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3454109
...Mills, Esq., Schutt, Schmidt, Burnett, and Noey, Jacksonville, for Appellees. HAWKES, J. Appellant, Direct General Insurance Company, appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Enterprise Leasing Company. The trial court held that, pursuant to section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, Appellant had the primary responsibility to provide personal injury protection (PIP) insurance coverage to Elizabeth and Armando Leandry for injuries received while driving a rental car owned by Enterprise, and tha...
...Thus, Appellant incurs no obligation to provide PIP coverage to the Leandrys under the second provision. III. THE RENTAL CAR AGREEMENT Enterprise seeks to avoid the policy language by relying on the coverage shifting language of the rental car agreement. The language of the agreement meets the requirements of section 627.7263, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 206432
...Moreover, it states that in the event of a default, Quick Cash shall have the right to take possession of the car, "in addition to all other remedies afforded by law." This rental contract does not contain any language satisfying the statutory insurance requirements in section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1991)....
...These leases also appear to be "consumer lease[s]," as defined in section
680.1031(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1991). Without deciding whether the leases could be unfair or deceptive for any other reason, we conclude that the failure of the leases to comply with section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1991), could render them unfair and could leave the motoring public without adequate protection for the negligent operation of vehicles for which Quick Cash is presumably responsible under the doctrine of dangerous instrumentality....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4294, 2001 WL 321213
...the wrongful death action. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Inter-American on the basis that a renter’s insurance carrier had a duty to provide a defense for the lessor. Thereafter, this court reversed the summary judgment finding that “section 627.7263, Florida Statutes does not encompass a duty on the party of the renter’s insurer (here, State Farm) to defend the car rental agency (here, InterAmerican) in a lawsuit involving the rented vehicle.” See State Farm Mut....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2304, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10390
...ly injuries caused to a third party by the operation of the leased vehicle by the lessee’s employee. We earlier held in this controversy that because a certain provision of the lease agreement did not satisfy the “boldface” type requirement of section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, it was not effective to shift responsibility for primary liability coverage from the lessor to the lessee....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2762, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6669
...Cole,
493 So.2d 445, 446 (Fla.1986), the Florida Supreme Court stated: “[t]he insurer of the owner/lessor must provide the first $10,000 worth of coverage unless the owner/lessor has properly shifted the burden of primary insurance to the lessee pursuant to section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981).” See Allstate Ins....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11108, 1994 WL 637497
...Appellee is the renter’s automobile liability insurer which the' trial court held had no obligation to defend appellant in the above action, notwithstanding the provision of the 1987 rental agreement which the parties hereto stipulated to be in compliance with section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1985). 1 The above statute provides: 627.7263 Rental and leasing driver’s insurance to be primary; exception.— (1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be pr...
...This unanswered question presents precisely the same issue as that in the instant case. Essentially, appellee argues that it was not obligated to defend appellant because appellant was not an “insured” under the policy issued by appellee to the renter/driver. On the other hand, appellant persuasively contends that section 627.7263 governs, not the insurance policy, and that the insurance coverage which said section imposed upon appel-lee was intended to encompass the duty to defend appellant, the rental agency, in addition to the renter. Unless the rental agency/owner properly shifts the burden of primary insurance pursuant to section 627.7263, the rental agency’s liability insurance carrier is responsible for the primary layer of insurance coverage up to the financial responsibility requirements of the law, 2 regardless of any contrary contractual provisions in the lease or insurance policy....
...result contrary to that intended by the parties. See Commerce Ins. Co. v. Atlas Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
585 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied,
598 So.2d 75 (Fla.1992), in which the third district recognized that the same statute now in question, section
627.7263, altered the insurance policy in that case....
...ency’s] auto insurance must pay its limits before we pay.” Id. at 1085 n. 2. In other words, the renter’s policy only provided for excess coverage on the rental vehicle. However, the court determined that by following the procedure outlined in section 627.7263, the leasing agency had shifted primary coverage to the driver/renter’s insurance carrier. This effectively rewrote the contractual provisions of the insurance contract between the driver/renter and its insurer. We believe that section 627.7263 was intended to shift to the renter’s insurer primary coverage for both the renter and the rental agency....
...to the lessee’s insurance carrier, thus rendering its own insurance secondary.” *59 A close examination of the financial responsibility laws provides further guidance in resolving the issue on appeal. The conclusion that, absent compliance with section
627.7263, the owner’s insurer is responsible for primary coverage is mandated by application of the state’s financial responsibility laws, as outlined in sections
324.151(l)(a) and
324.021(7), Florida Statutes....
...Section
324.151(l)(a) mandates that an owner’s liability policy shall insure “the owner ... and any other [permissible] operator ... against loss from the liability imposed by law for damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of [the owner’s named vehicle].” (Emphasis added.) 3 Section
627.7263 initially provides that the lessor’s insurance is to be primary “for the limits of liability and personal injury protection coverage as required by ss....
...324.021(7) and
627.736.” 4 This statement recognizes the general rule discussed above that the owner’s insurance shall be primary. Since section
324.151(l)(a) mandates that an owner’s liability policy shall insure the owner and any permissible operator, it is logical to presume that the legislature’s statement in section
627.7263 that the lessor’s insurance would be primary contemplated that such insurance would provide such primary coverage for both the lessor and the lessee....
...It, therefore, strains logic to suggest that in providing a mechanism in the very same sentence for shifting the responsibility for primary coverage to the lessee, the legislature intended to do so only as far as such primary insurance affected the lessee. Rather, a more common sense reading of section 627.7263 would be to interpret “insurance” consistently throughout the sentence and section as there is no indication that the legislature intended for it to be read inconsistently within the same sentence and section. This suggests that the legislature intended to shift primary coverage as it relates to both the owner/lessor and any permissible operator/lessee. In sum, we conclude that compliance with section 627.7263 shifted to appellee/renter’s insurer the responsibility for primary coverage of all claims arising from the vehicle rented by its insured up to the basic minimum limit required by the financial responsibility laws, including a responsibility to provide primary coverage to appellani/rental agency....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1353, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8484
rehearing of the summary judgment alleging that section
627.7263(1), Florida Statutes (1979), applied only
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1330, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14301
...(1979) 1 its efforts were defective in the respects outlined in Guemes v. Biscayne Auto Rentals, Inc.,
414 So.2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Accordingly, the trial court summarily held and Southeastern agrees that it provides primary coverage under sec.
627.7263(1) for the first $10,000 of liability coverage which is statutorily required by sec....
...83-2016, opinion filed, November 28, 1984) [9 FLW 2485]. Finally, we do not understand — as Southeastern seems to argue and Reliance Ins. Co. and DeSerio seem to indicate—why the failure of the lessor and its insurer successfully to invoke sec. 627.7263 as interpreted in Guemes so as to shift from the lessor’s to the driver’s carrier the statutorily-provided primary responsibility for coverage within the $10,000 limits should have any effect upon either the statutory obligation or the effect of the applicable policies....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18342
...ct acci *182 dent 2 and that State Farm is responsible for any excess up to its policy limits. Reversed. PEARSON, TILLMAN, Associate Judge, dissents. . The question of primary coverage for rental vehicles has subsequently' been directly addressed by Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976). This cause of action is not affected by the statute in that it arose prior to July 1, 1976, the date the statute was enacted. Ch. 76-56, Laws of Fla. Section 627.7263 has been modified by section 29 of Chapter 77-468, Laws of Florida, to reflect the case law cited herein....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10440, 2002 WL 1724026
...Appellant and his wife were named insureds under the Cotton States policy. The policy was in full force and effect on May 11, 1999, when Mrs. Harris rented a motor vehicle in Gainesville, Florida, from Avis Corporation as a temporary substitute for the Harris’ car covered by the policy. Pursuant to section
627.7263, Florida Statutes (1999), the vehicle rental contract specified in bold type on its face that the driver’s policy provides primary coverage for the limits of liability and personal injury protection coverage required by section
324.021(7) and section
627.736, Florida Statutes....
...-.Harris argues that the “Special Provision for Rented or Leased Vehicles” is ambiguous, thereby permitting the *1214 trial court to find the existence of PIP coverage. We do not agree. This part of the Florida endorsement merely adopts language consistent with section 627.7263 establishing which insurance coverage is primary when the insured is operating a rental vehicle....
...ny under its policy of insurance with [Mr. Harris] because the ... Special Provision Relating to Rental Agreements establishes a priority of PIP coverage, but does not create PIP coverage where none exists. AFFIRMED. WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1999), provides, as follows: (1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease is primary unless otherw...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 586, 1998 WL 27298
...Because Richard did not have a credit card, Marsha signed the rental agreement and charged the rental to her credit card. The rental agreement contained the following insurance shifting provision: In accordance with the exception to Florida Statute 627.7263 you are hereby notified that this rental agreement provides that the valid and collectible liability and personal injury protection insurance of the renter, or any other person operating this motor vehicle with the renter’s consent, shall...
...InterAmerican asked State Farm to undertake the cost of defending the lawsuit; State Farm refused. Judgment was against InterAmerican in the McCloud suit. InterAmerican sought indemnification from State Farm for attorney fees and costs, alleging that State Farm was obligated to defend InterAmerican, pursuant to section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1995)....
...The trial judge in the instant case did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s Allstate-RJT decision, as it was rendered after the summary judgment here. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. RJT Enter., Inc.,
692 So.2d 142 (Fla.1997). Allstate-RJT held that section
627.7263, Florida Statutes, does not encompass a duty on the part of the renter’s insurer (here, State Farm) to defend the car rental agency (here, InterAmerican) in a lawsuit involving the rented vehicle 1 ....
...l court on remand. The summary judgment is reversed and the matter' remanded for action consistent with this opinion. . In Allstate-RJT, the Supreme Court answered the following (rephrased) certified question in the negative: Did the legislature [in section 627.7263] intend to allow motor vehicle lessors to shift the duty to defend to the lessee's insurer in situations where the insurer of the lessee has a duty to defend its insured and its insured has contracted with the lessor to provide prima...
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 366, 1991 WL 4332
...self-insurance to the lessee’s carrier, the Travelers Companies, we affirm. 1 See Guemes v. Biscayne Auto Rentals, Inc.,
414 So.2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); International Bankers Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental,
553 So.2d 740 (Fla. *962 5th DCA 1989); §
627.7263, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1365, 1999 WL 68787
...Tolbert as the sole "Renter," but also identified her boyfriend, Mark Grant, as an authorized driver. The agreement contained *289 statutory language making the valid and collectible liability insurance of any authorized driver the primary coverage. See § 627.7263(2), Fla....
...But the legislature did not opt for this logical approach. Instead, it has allowed the rental car companies to create contracts of adhesion that make the renter's insurance primaryeven though the renter's insurance company is not a party to the rental contract. See § 627.7263(2), Fla....
...RJT Enters., Inc.,
692 So.2d 142 (Fla.1997); Fowler,
480 So.2d 1287; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co.,
478 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1985); Allstate Ins. Co. of Canada v. Value Rent-A-Car of Fla., Inc.,
463 So.2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Although there is no general statutory regulation of non-owned auto coverage, section
627.7263(2) makes it very important that Floridians have non-owned automobile coverage that includes typical rental cars; otherwise they will have little or no insurance protection when they rent such a car....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10836, 1998 WL 536954
...(“InterAmerican”) on behalf of her brother, Richard Phillips (“Phillips”). The rental agreement Pabon signed required her to indemnify InterAmerican for all claims and also made her liability and personal injury protection insurance primary for all losses pursuant to section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8847, 1996 WL 470871
...of Reliance where the language in the lease contract was sufficient to shift the burden of providing primary coverage for the minimum financial responsibility limits of $10,000 per person/$20,000 per occurrence from the rental agency to the renter. § 627.7263, Fla.Stat....
...3d DCA 1991), review denied,
598 So.2d 75 (Fla. 1992); Quemes v. Biscayne Auto Rentals, Inc.,
414 So.2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Additionally, we find that the trial court properly ruled that Allstate has a duty to defend Reliance’s insured, the rental agency. [C]ompliance with section
627.7263[, Florida Statutes (1985) ] 1 shifted to [the renter’s] insurer the responsibility for primary coverage of all claims arising from the vehicle rented by its insured up to the basic minimum limit required by the financial responsibi...
...Y OF DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION TO ITS INSURED, THE RENTER, DOES THE RENTER’S INSURER OWE THE RENTAL AGENCY, A NON INSURED UNDER THE POLICY, ANY DUTY OF DEFENSE AND/OR INDEMNIFICATION? Affirmed; question certified. . The 1985 and 1989 versions of section 627.7263 of the Florida Statutes are identical.
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 862, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7223
...t the written lease agreement for the substitute vehicle determined the obligations of the parties with regard to insurance. We find no error in the court’s holding that the rental agreement did not, in form or content, satisfy the requirements of section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981) so as to shift responsibility for primary coverage from the lessor to the lessee....
