Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Nor has alternative protection for the victim of the accident been provided, as evidenced by the facts here before the Court. Had the Legislature chosen to require that appellant be insured against property damage loss — as is, in effect, required by Fla. Stat. § 627.733, F.S.A., with respect to other possible damages — the issues would be different....

...Moreover, the stated purpose of the No-Fault Act is to "provide medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance *1084 securing such benefits ...." § 627.731, Fla. Stat. (2001). This purpose is accomplished through the provisions of section 627.733, which require that every owner of a motor vehicle "maintain security as required by subsection (3)...." § 627.733(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). Subsection (3) provides that "[s]uch security shall be provided: (a) [b]y an insurance policy ... which provides the benefits and exemptions contained in ss. 627.730-627.7405." § 627.733(3)(a), Fla....

...Stat. (2001). Section 627.736 contains the provisions that specify what the security requirements are: medical, disability and death benefits. As the court explained in Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1977): The provision of Section 627.733, that every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in the state shall maintain security, must be read in context with the rest of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act....

...The provisions for tort immunity in personal injury cases present questions differing from those present in Kluger . As we noted in Kluger : "Had the Legislature chosen to require that appellant be insured against property damage loss — as is, in effect, required by Fla. Stat. § 627.733, F.S.A., with respect to other possible damages — the issues would be different. A reasonable alternative to an action in tort would have been provided... ." 281 So.2d at 5. Sub judice, we have exactly that situation. F.S. § 627.733(1), F.S.A., requires that: "Every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in this state shall maintain security as required by subsection (3) of this section in effect continuously throughout the registration or licensing period." F.S. § 627.733(3), F.S.A., requires that security be provided either by insurance for the benefits contained in the no-fault law or by such other method approved by the department of insurance as providing equivalent security. Additionally, F.S. § 627.733(4), F.S.A., provides that an owner of a motor vehicle as to which security is required and who does not have such security in effect at the time of an accident has no tort immunity, but is personally liable for payment of the benefits under F.S....

...ther party was overwhelming. The provisions of F.S. § 627.737, F.S.A., present a totally different picture. As we have noted above, insurance coverage [8] as to the personal injury benefits provided by the no-fault insurance law is compulsory. F.S. § 627.733, F.S.A....

...rt action, and may recover for intangible damage (pain and suffering, etc.) by means of such suit in all but the limited class of cases above mentioned. Considering this pattern of recovery, together with the fact that coverage is made compulsory by § 627.733, there is a clear distinction from the total deprivation of any right of recovery for property loss under $550.00 disapproved in Kluger ....

...slative objectives, we are compelled next to examine what changes the act makes in the prior tort law. F.S. § 627.737, F.S.A., grants an exemption from liability in tort for vehicular accidents, to persons meeting the insurance requirements of F.S. § 627.733, F.S.A., to the extent that benefits are payable under the provisions of § 627.736(1) and also to the extent that an injured party may not recover for pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience unless certain threshold criteria have been met....

...n. F.S. § 627.735(1), F.S.A. Tort actions against persons not required to provide security are unaffected. F.S. § 627.740, F.S.A. Persons required to provide security and failing to do so have no tort immunity and are personally liable, under F.S. § 627.733(4), F.S.A., for the payment of benefits provided for in F.S....

...Amendment, U.S.Const. In any event, the basic right is well-established. [7] Fla. Const., Art. I, § 21. [8] Or its approved equivalent. As used hereafter in this opinion, the term "insurance" refers to the security required to be maintained by F.S. § 627.733(3), F.S.A., whether the means by which such security is provided is insurance or some other approved method....

...of Transportation report cited above concluded that the preexisting automobile insurance system "would appear to possess the highly dubious distinction of having probably the highest cost/benefit ratio of any major compensation system currently in operation in this country." [14] F.S. § 627.733, F.S.A....

...Rodriguez, 808 So.2d 82, 85 (Fla.2001) (stating that the intent of the No-Fault Law is "to provide a minimum level of insurance benefits without regard to fault"). The No-Fault Law mandates security that can be established by alternative means, one of which is PIP insurance. See § 627.733, Fla....

...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). See § 627.733(3)(b), Fla....

...Appellant contends that Florida law does prohibit the use of the family-household exclusion in automobile liability insurance policies. The basis of her argument is the Florida Automobile Reparations Act, which became effective January 1, 1972. Specifically, she relies upon the language of Section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...The policy in this case does provide for payment of the "no fault" benefits in accordance with the Act. No issue has been raised concerning the payment of these benefits. The Act is limited in scope and is separate from the Financial Responsibility Law, Chapter 324, Florida Statutes (1975). The provision of Section 627.733, that every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in the state shall maintain security, must be read in context with the rest of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act....

...Collura, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So.2d 784; Bordettsky v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So.2d 174; Anno. 60 ALR2d 1146. However, the appellant has made a persuasive argument that because of the modern trend of requiring that motorists carry insurance [§ 627.733, Fla....

...The cause of action in this case is a first party claim in contract for failure to pay the contractual obligation for personal injuries sustained, regardless of fault. The coverage is mandated by section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1981), in all policies complying with the security requirements of section 627.733, Florida Statutes....

...dson." Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar—Advertising Rules, 762 So.2d 392 (Fla.1999) (citing Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 119 S.Ct. 1923, 144 L.Ed.2d 161 (1999)). [9] See supra note 5. [10] See § 627.733, Fla.Stat....

...onclude he agrees they were unjustifiable. We reject appellant's second point on appeal that it is entitled to a "set-off" of $5,000.00 because the appellee failed to carry no fault insurance, and therefore was a self-insurer under Florida Statutes, section 627.733(1)....

...§ 324.022 (the requirement of having sufficient financial responsibility for property damage can be met by having an insurance policy that provides coverage in the amount of at least $30,000 for combined property damage and bodily injury liability for any one crash), and Fla. Stat. § 627.733 (setting forth Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault Personal Injury Protection insurance standards)....

...Moreover, the stated purpose of the No-Fault Act is to "provide medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance securing such benefits...." § 627.731, Fla. Stat. (2001). This purpose is accomplished through the provisions of section 627.733, which require that every owner of a motor vehicle "maintain security as required by subsection (3)...." § 627.733(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). Subsection (3) provides that "[s]uch security shall be provided: (a) [b]y an insurance policy ... which provides the benefits and exemptions contained in ss. 627.730-627.7405." § 627.733(3)(a), Fla....

...Stat. (2001). Section 627.736 contains the provisions that specify what the security requirements are: medical, disability and death benefits. As the court explained in Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1977): The provision of Section 627.733, that every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in the state shall maintain security, must be read in context with the rest of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act....

...3d DCA 1993), review denied, 637 So.2d 233 (Fla.1994)). [7] In order to determine what the "required benefits" are that flow from the coverage provisions of a PIP insurance policy, we turn to section 627.736(1), which provides that "[e]very insurance policy complying with the security requirements of s. 627.733 shall provide personal injury protection to the named insured...." (Emphasis added)....

...To allow one who lacks any other applicable insurance coverage to purchase personal injury protection subject to a deductible of several thousand dollars makes that person, in effect, a self insurer for that not inconsiderable amount without subjecting the insured to any showing of financial responsibility as required by section 627.733(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...The constitutionality of the Automobile Reparations Reform Act was settled in Chapman v. Dillon and Lasky v. State Farm Insurance . We should not rewrite the statute but should construe and apply it according to the manifest legislative intent. NOTES [1] Section 627.733(3)(b), Fla....

...es dealing with driving while license suspended, revoked, canceled or disqualified. Section 13 creates section 322.341, Florida Statutes which makes it a third degree felony to drive while a license is permanently revoked. Finally, section 14 amends section 627.733, Florida Statutes which deals with suspension of a motor vehicle registration for lack of required security....

...to the plaintiff in the United Services case. However, it is argued that PIP benefits should be considered as paid or payable, regardless of the existence of an insurance policy affording those benefits, by reason of the following language found in Section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1977): An owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required by this section who fails to have such security in effect at the time of an accident ....

...r the payment of PIP benefits to one's self. In that connection, we might mention that this court has held that the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle is not made an insurer himself, though he is given the rights and obligations of an insurer under Section 627.733....

...It is absolutely inexcusable for any owner of a private passenger automobile in this state to fail to obtain the insurance coverage required by law. But the legislature has clearly spelled out the consequences of that dereliction of duty. Personal liability is imposed by Section 627.733 as well as the loss of no fault tort immunity....

...he had under lease. The lease did not contain an option to purchase and therefore, under § 627.732(2), Florida Statutes (1975), appellee was not the "owner" of the vehicle and was therefore not required to carry insurance on the leased vehicle. See § 627.733, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Rodriguez, 808 So.2d 82, 85 (Fla.2001) (stating that the intent of the No-Fault Law is "to provide a minimum level of insurance benefits without regard to fault"). The No-Fault Law mandates security that can be established by alternative means, one of which is PIP insurance. See § 627.733, Fla....

...surance coverage 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....

...Thus, Florida Power is not an "insurer," and is not under a statutory obligation to offer uninsured motorist coverage to Lipof. [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....

...). The question is whether or not attorney's fees can be properly awarded to an insured and against a self-insurer upon the rendition of a judgment or decree in the insured's favor, concerning an issue of coverage. We believe that in accordance with Section 627.733(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), a self-insurer who qualifies under Section 324.171, Florida Statutes (1975), is subject to all the rights and obligations of *636 an insurer under the "Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act," Sections 627.730-627.741, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...1975, disentitles appellant to benefits under her father's State Farm policy because appellant was herself "the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required," i.e., the owner of a vehicle "required to be registered and licensed." Sec. 627.733(1), F.S....

...ays. Sec. 320.02(1), F.S. 1975; Kotich, supra, 38 Fla. Supp. at 202. It follows that a vehicle previously required to be registered is excused from registration requirements, and its owner is correspondingly excused from the security requirements of § 627.733(1), when the owner no longer "maintains" the vehicle in order to operate it on public streets and highways....

...rd did appellant evidence an intention no longer to maintain her automobile for its usual purpose. After recovery from her injuries, appellant repaired and reinsured her car. Because appellant owned a motor vehicle for which security was required by § 627.733(1), F.S....

...Farm, which refused payment therefor. It was the insurer's contention that thermographic examinations did not fall within the purview of medically necessary treatment authorized and required under the personal injury protection benefits provided by section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...stified to all aspects of the medical procedure and study known as thermography. The trial judge entered a twenty-eight-page final judgment, in which he found that a thermographic examination was not a necessary medical service within the meaning of section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1983), and, thus, he entered judgment for State Farm....

...said insurance policy, she is entitled to the claimed benefits up to a limit of $5,000. § 627.736, Florida Statutes provides in pertinent part as follows: "(1) Required benefits. — Every insurance policy complying with the security requirements of § 627.733 shall provide personal injury protection providing for payment of all reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical, surgical, X-ray, dental, and rehabilitative services, including prosthetic devices; necessary ambulance, hospital, nu...

...es dealing with driving while license suspended, revoked, canceled or disqualified. Section 13 creates section 322.341, Florida Statutes which makes it a third degree felony to drive while a license is permanently revoked. Finally, section 14 amends section 627.733, Florida Statutes which deals with suspension of a motor vehicle registration for lack of required security....

...father had failed to procure no-fault insurance coverage on his own car. It argues that since the stepfather's vehicle was not so insured Farley was required to look to his stepfather as an "insurer" under the provisions of §§ 627.736(4)(d) 4. and 627.733(4), F.S....

...It also follows that if Farley's stepfather had an insured vehicle, Farley would be entitled to coverage under his stepfather's insurance policy, there being no denial that Farley was a "relative ... by marriage" domiciled in the stepfather's household. But Farley's stepfather did not have coverage, so § 627.733(4), F.S....

...Accordingly, that fear of the legislature has not materialized in this case. In short, the net effect of the judgment below is to deprive Farley of any insurance benefits at all simply because his stepfather failed to obtain insurance according to the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act. While, commendably, § 627.733(4), supra, was designed to exert pressure upon one such as Farley's stepfather to buy no-fault coverage, we cannot believe that the legislature intended to acquiesce in the consequence of calamity to a relative living in his household if h...

...`Insurer' includes every person engaged as indemnitor, surety, or contractor in the business of entering into contracts of insurance or of annuity." Thus, an insurer is one in the business of selling insurance. The significance of this here is that § 627.733(4), supra, does not declare that a motor vehicle owner who fails to purchase insurance is indeed an insurer; it says only that he has the rights and obligations of an insurer and becomes liable for payment of benefits under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act....

...Appellant, the owner of an automobile required to be registered and licensed in Florida, failed to obtain an insurance policy or otherwise maintain the security required in respect to that automobile by the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, § 627.733 et seq., F.S....

...the payment of such benefits by the owner's insurer notwithstanding that the passenger was conceivably "entitled to collect personal injury benefits from" his stepfather, who owned an uninsured motor vehicle and therefore became a self insurer. Sec. 627.733(4), F.S....

...SMITH, J., concurring with opinion. SMITH, Judge (concurring): *244 Because appellant does not contest that his automobile was one required to be registered and licensed in Florida under § 320.35, F.S., and is therefore a vehicle in respect to which security is required by § 627.733(1), F.S., I agree to the conclusion and with much that is said in the majority opinion....

...The good news is: You can sue for all of your damages without regard to the no-fault threshold. The Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law places an obligation upon car owners to obtain this coverage if they are required to register their car in Florida. See § 627.733, Fla....

...he insured's automobile, and personal injury protection (PIP). We therefore start from the premise that Ms. Hepler, as the owner and operator of the insured vehicle, obtained this insurance policy to comply with the security requirements of sections 627.733-627.736, Florida Statutes (1983), and to protect Barnett Bank, as lien holder, against loss of its security interest in the vehicle. Failure to have statutorily required security in effect while operating her vehicle in this state would require suspension of Ms. Hepler's vehicle registration and operator's permit. § 627.733(5), Fla....

...The thrust of the appeal is whether an automobile which has been rendered inoperable due to mechanical failure or defect is subject to the security requirements of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act (No-Fault). Section 627.730, et seq., Florida Statutes (1971). Section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1971), provides that every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in the State of Florida shall maintain security on such vehicle....

...The automobile while being stored may remain garaged and be totally inoperable for a time period of many months, although the operator is possessed with the intent to place that automobile back on the roadway at some indefinite future date in a restored condition. Surely the legislature in drafting § 320.01, § 320.02 and § 627.733, Florida Statutes, did not intend that the law require that individual to maintain current registration and suffer the burden of paying insurance premiums for an automobile for which there exists no possibility of being involved in an automobile accident on the public roadways....

...use of its inoperable condition. Such an individual may not be considered the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in this state, and therefore does not fall within the purview of the security requirements of § 627.733, Florida Statutes (1971)....

...The cause of action in this case is a first party claim in contract for failure to pay the contractual obligation for personal injuries sustained, regardless of fault. The coverage is mandated by section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1981), in all policies complying with the security requirements of section 627.733, Florida Statutes....

...Appellant contends that Florida law does prohibit the use of the family-household exclusion in automobile liability insurance policies. The basis of her argument is the Florida Automobile Reparations Act, which became effective January 1, 1972. Specifically, she relies upon the language of Section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...The policy in this case does provide for payment of the "no fault" benefits in accordance with the Act. No issue has been raised concerning the payment of these benefits. The Act is limited in scope and is separate from the Financial Responsibility Law, Chapter 324, Florida Statutes (1975). The provision of Section 627.733, that every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in the state shall maintain security, must be read in context with the rest of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act....

...of the policy itself. Florida Statute § 627.736, F.S.A, provides as follows: "627.736. Required personal injury protection benefits; exclusions; priority. "(1) Required Benefits. — Every insurance policy complying with the security requirements of § 627.733 shall provide personal injury protection providing for payment of all reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical, surgical, x-ray, dental, and rehabilitative services, including prosthetic devices; necessary ambulance, hospital, nu...

...The trial court erred in relying on the exclusion in granting the appealed summary judgment and that judgment is hereby REVERSED and the cause remanded for further proceedings. ORFINGER, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. NOTES [1] See ch. 324, Fla. Stat. (1975); § 627.733, Fla. Stat. (1975) (effective January 1, 1972). See also ch. 77-468, § 31, Laws of Florida (amending section 627.733(3)(a), effective September 1, 1977).

...1st DCA 1962)[sic]. Such legislation, however, must be reasonably related to a legitimate legislative objective. Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So.2d 9 (Fla.1974). Most owners of a motor vehicle required to be registered in Florida must buy PIP insurance. § 627.733, Fla....

...he definition of "motor vehicle" established by law, [6] and is therefore neither required to be registered and licensed [7] nor be insured under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act. The Sherman court found that Sections 320.01, 320.02 and 627.733, Florida Statutes (1975) were required to be considered together, and that, so considered, no legislative intent could be discerned which would require the owner of an inoperable automobile to maintain current registration and pay insurance p...

...fore the accident, it had been continuously driven for more than a year prior to the accident, and was licensed and registered at the time of the accident. The fact that it was "temporarily immobile and inoperable", said the court, "has no effect on Section 627.733(1), Florida Statutes, or on the requirement for security under this set of facts" [12] ....

...The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. MILLS, C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur. NOTES [1] Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act (No Fault), Section 627.730, et seq., Florida Statutes (1975). [2] Section 627.733(3) Florida Statutes (1975) "Required Security" sets forth the requirement of liability insurance under Chapter 324, the "Financial Responsibility Law", modified to provide the benefits and exemptions contained in the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act. [3] Section 627.733(1) Florida Statutes (1975) provides: "(1) Every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in this state shall maintain security as required by subsection (3) in effect continuously throughout the re...

...xcept in certain limited circumstances). § 627.737, Fla. Stat. (1981). In general, Florida requires persons owning a motor vehicle regularly operated in Florida to carry automobile liability insurance sufficient to provide the security specified in section 627.733....

...the insurer of that vehicle if the passenger also owns a vehicle which is required to be insured by the Florida statute. § 627.736(4)(d)4 a and b, Fla. Stat. (1981). The passenger is deemed to be self-insured and personally liable for PIP benefits. § 627.733(4), Fla....

...Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Augustin, 412 So.2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Tapscott v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 330 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Staley v. Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 328 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Section 627.733(2) reads as follows: Every nonresident owner or registrant of a motor vehicle which, whether operated or not, has been physically present within this state for more than 90 days during the preceding 365 days shall thereafter maintain security as defined by subsection (3) in effect continuously throughout the period such motor vehicle remains within this state. Appellant argues that section 627.733(2) should be construed to mean that the vehicle must be physically present continuously for 90 days in the preceding 365 days; and since Epperson only drove his vehicle to and from Florida each day, it was not continuously within the...

...s physically present on a cumulative basis within Florida more than 90 days during any preceding 365-day period, such vehicle is deemed to be present within Florida for a sufficient period of time to subject its owner to the security requirements of section 627.733....

...Accordingly, the court below did not err in the construction and application of the statute. *175 Dixie contends, alternatively, that Epperson was required by section 320.38(1), [2] to register and license his pickup truck in Florida within ten days after he had begun work here and that Epperson was, therefore, required by section 627.733(1) [3] to obtain no-fault insurance, including PIP coverage, regardless of the application of section 627.733(2)....

...the state . .. such nonresident shall within 10 days after the commencement of such employment or education be required to register his motor vehicles in this state if such motor vehicles are proposed to be operated on the highways of the state. [3] Section 627.733(1), Florida Statutes (1981), reads: Every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in this state shall maintain security as required by subsection (3) in effect continuously throughout the registration or licensing....

...$4,500.00, yet it also determined that the plaintiff had not satisfied the threshold requirement of section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes (1981). Based upon the jury's latter *442 finding, the trial court entered a judgment in the defendant's favor. Section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1981), requires only the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle to maintain security (personal injury protection benefits)....

...nt. (c) Significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement. (d) Death. [3] § 627.736 Required Personal Injury Protection Benefits; Exclusion; Priority. — (1) REQUIRED BENEFITS. — Every insurance policy complying with the security requirements of s. 627.733 shall provide personal injury protection providing for payment of all reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical, surgical, X-ray, dental and rehabilitative services, including prosthetic devices; necessary ambulance, hospital, and...

...der the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Leatherby, and this appeal ensued. The pivotal question is whether, under these facts, Section 627.733, Florida Statutes, requires security for a licensed and registered motor vehicle which is temporarily inoperable or in storage. Section 627.733(1), entitled "Required Security," states as follows: "Every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in this state shall maintain security as required by subsection (3) of this section in effect continuously throughout the registration or licensing period....

...f this case are that Williams' automobile had been continuously driven for almost a year prior to the accident, and it was licensed and registered at the time of the accident. The fact that it was temporarily immobile and inoperable has no effect on Section 627.733(1), Florida Statutes, or on the requirement for security under this set of facts....

...s symptoms probably were related to that accident. At the present time there is no objective evidence of any residual injury. Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1983), provides that "every insurance policy complying with the security requirements of § 627.733 shall provide personal injury protection to ......

...The writ is granted and the decision of the circuit court is quashed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein set forth. It is so ordered. NOTES [1] Required benefits. — Every insurance policy complying with the security requirements of § 627.733 shall provide personal injury protection providing for payment of all reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical, surgical, x-ray, dental, and rehabilitative services, including prosthetic devices; necessary ambulance, hospital, nu...

...be less susceptible to liability and can reduce its rates for individual coverage. Under the statutory scheme as it existed at the time of the subject incident, a commercial vehicle owner was required to obtain PIP insurance on all of its vehicles. § 627.733, Fla....

...However, under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, Sections 627.730-.741, Florida Statutes (1975), which became effective in 1972, every automobile owner is required to have personal injury protection and automobile liability insurance or equivalent security without consideration of his accident record. Section 627.733(3)(a) of the Automobile Reparations Reform Act incorporates the coverage requirements of the Financial Responsibility Law....

...provision of the Financial Responsibility Law. Any insurance policy which is represented as providing security under the Automobile Reparations Reform Act will be enforced as if it were in compliance with that act regardless of its actual terms. See Section 627.733(3)(a), Florida *564 Statutes....

...Wilkerson, defendants *875 below, appeal from an order granting a new trial on the issue of damages and a directed verdict as to their third affirmative defense. The trial court granted appellee's motion for a directed verdict, ruling that the tort exemption of section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1981), did not apply in this automobile accident case....

...benefits.'" Allstate Ins. Co. v. Holy Cross Hosp., Inc., 961 So.2d 328, 331-32 (Fla.2007) (quoting FLA. STAT. § 627.731 (2006)). The Florida No-Fault Law allows the "security" to be established through PIP insurance. Id. (citing quoting FLA. STAT. § 627.733)....

...he benefits described in § 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be payable but for any exclusion or deductible authorized by §§ 627.730-627.741, under any insurance policy or other method of security complying with the requirements of § 627.733, or by an owner personally liable under § 627.733 for the payment of such benefits, unless a person is entitled to maintain an action for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience for such injury under the provisions of subsection (2)." The record clearly establishes that security had been provided by both drivers (Stockton and Christensen) as required by sec. 627.733, F.S. Under the terms and provisions of sec. 627.736, F.S., every insurance policy complying with the security requirements of sec. 627.733 shall provide personal injury protection....

...Inc. On that date, the vehicle driven by Manuel Carbon, in which Aida Carbon was a passenger, was involved in an accident. The Carbons, allegedly injured as a result of the accident, sued Greyhound for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under § 627.733(4), Fla....

...s. None of the other principles in the Restatement require the application of Florida law. While Florida law provides for no-fault protection to injured persons, personal injury protection coverage is not required of out-of-state motor vehicles. See § 627.733(2), Fla....

...argued that appellee's evidence failed to establish his entitlement to benefits under either the statutory definition of relative or under the policy definition. Appellant also argued that appellee's failure to have his truck insured as required by section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1985) barred his claim for personal injury protection benefits. The trial court denied appellant's motions for a directed verdict. The trial court granted appellee's motion for a directed verdict on the issue raised concerning his failure to have his vehicle insured as required by section 627.733....

...ed motorist and medical payments claim. Appellant also contends the trial court erred when it directed a verdict in favor of appellee on his claim for personal injury protection benefits because appellee did not have his truck insured as required by section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...e's claims for uninsured motorist benefits, personal injury protection benefits and medical payments benefits. Finally, we affirm the trial court's directed verdict in favor of appellee on the question of compliance with the security requirements of section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...e policy itself. Florida Statute § 627.736, F.S.A, provides as follows: “627.736. Required personal injury protection benefits; exclusions; priority. “(1) Required Benefits. — Every insurance policy complying with the security requirements of § 627.733 shall provide personal injury protection providing for payment of all reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical, surgical, x-ray, dental, and rehabilitative services, including prosthetic devices; necessary ambulance, hospital, nu...

...benefits from the insurer of the vehicle she was occupying on March 9, 1985, when injured unless on that date she was the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security was required under sections 627.730 through 637.7405, Florida Statutes. Section 627.733(1), Florida Statutes (1985) requires security (PIP) for every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in this state....

...limit. III. ANALYSIS “The purpose of PIP benefits is to provide up to $10,000 for medical bills and lost wages without regard to fault.” Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 740, 744 (Fla.2002). Every insurance policy issued in compliance with section 627.733, Florida Statutes (2008), “shall provide personal injury protection to the named insured ......

...1st DCA 1979); Sherman v. Reserve Insurance Company, 350 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The Automobile Reparations Reform Act requires insurance in this context for "[e]very owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in this state... ." § 627.733(1), Fla....

...See §§ 320.02(1), 320.37, 320.38. Thus, Ms. Jiminez met the first requirement of section 627.737(2) — as owner and operator of a vehicle on the roads of this state — but she must also have had the necessary security in order to exercise the permanent injury threshold defense. Section 627.733(1) provides that every vehicle required to be registered in the state must have security in the form of an insurance policy or other authorized method....

...The plaintiff Vera May Williams is 16 years old, the daughter of Selma Krauss, and living in the same family unit as her mother. The mother Selma Krauss is the owner of a motor vehicle that is not covered by insurance as required by Florida Statutes § 627.733....

..."At that hearing, the attorneys for the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that there are no factual issues between them, that the sole question to be decided by the court is one of law. "The position of the defendant Commercial Union Insurance Company is that under Florida Statutes §§ 627.732(4), 627.733(4) and 627.736(1) if a person related *619 by blood or marriage to any degree usually makes his or her home in the same family unit as the owner of a motor vehicle not covered by an insurance policy, that relative when injured while riding in...

...law for the purpose of PIP coverage and was, therefore, responsible for the statutory minimum of 80% of her own medical expenses. The trial court, however, ultimately denied appellant's requested set-off. This appeal followed. *1143 Florida Statutes section 627.733, entitled Required Security, requires all motor vehicle owners to maintain "no-fault" automobile insurance covering, among other items, 80% of the insured's own medical expenses. See §§ 627.733(1), (3)(a), 627.736(1)(a), Fla....

...extent that the benefits described in s. 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be payable but for any exclusion authorized by ss. 627.730-627.7405, under any insurance policy or other method of security complying with the requirements of s. 627.733, or by an owner personally liable under s. 627.733 for the payment of such benefits, unless a person is entitled to maintain an action for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience for such injury under the provisions of subsection (2)....

...(1995). As this provision provides, the tort exemption is effective as to non-permanent injuries to the extent that PIP benefits are payable for such injuries or would be payable by a vehicle owner personally liable for the payment of such benefits under section 627.733. A vehicle owner is personally liable for PIP benefits under section 627.733 when he or she fails to obtain the mandatory coverage: An owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required by this section who fails to have such security in effect at the time of an accident shall have no immunity from tort liability, but shall be personally liable for the payment of benefits under s. 627.736. With respect to such benefits, such an owner shall have all of the rights and obligations of an insurer under ss. 627.730-627.7405. § 627.733(4), Fla....

...Relying on the contract-based rationale of Ward, the Fifth District held: We reject appellant's second point on appeal that it is entitled to a "set-off" of $5,000.00 because the appellee failed to carry no fault insurance, and therefore was a self-insurer under Florida Statutes, section 627.733(1)....

...mandated by section 627.736 et seq. and not to the limits of coverage set out in the policy except as those limits comply with the statutory scheme. Section 627.736(1) requires that "every insurance policy complying with the security requirements of section 627.733 shall provide personal injury protection to the named insured ......

Padron, 310 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Section 627.733(2), Florida Statutes (1981), requires that

...Florida motor vehicle insurance law is such a cross-referenced labyrinth that one might assume a Minotaur of motor vehicle insurance lurks deep within it, ■ . Section 316.646 also incorporates the requirement to maintain personal injury protection as required by section 627,733, Florida Statutes (2014). Section 627.733 in turn references sections 627.730 through 627.7405. These provisions of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law require owners of four-wheeled motor vehicles to maintain $10,000 in personal injury protection security. §§ 627.733 and 627.736, Fla....

...Finally, Utvich contends that the trial court erred in finding Felizola did not have to prove permanent injury in order to claim pain-and-suffering damages. The trial court was correct. Taxis are defini-tionally excluded from the no fault law. See § 627.733(1), Fla....

...without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance securing such benefits.” § 627.731, Fla. Stat. (2019). The No-Fault Law requires “[e]very owner or registrant of a motor vehicle . . . required to be registered and licensed in this state [to] maintain security,” § 627.733(1), Fla. Stat. (2019), “[b]y an insurance policy delivered or issued for delivery in this state.” § 627.733(3), Fla....

...Vehicles]” upon showing “a net unencumbered worth of at least $40,000” (incorporating §§ 324.031(3) and 324.171, Fla. Stat. (2019)). 8 The security requirement may also be satisfied by self-insurance meeting statutory requirements. See § 627.733(3), Fla....

...PIP benefits who fails to have the coverage in effect at the time of an accident is both “personally liable for payment of [the] benefits” and, “[w]ith respect to such benefits,” deemed to have “all of the rights and obligations of an insurer under [the No-Fault Law].” § 627.733(4), Fla....

...e course of a year, even if registration is not required. They have identical provisions requiring coverage for any car that “has been physically present within this state for more than 90 days during the preceding 365 days.” §§ 324.022(3), 627.733(2), Fla....

...the preceding 365 days, irrespective of registration requirements. 9 A car owner who fails to maintain the required security also loses certain tort liability immunities that would otherwise be available under section 627.737. See § 627.733(4), Fla....

...his case—questions raised by Progressive’s alternative defense that Thomas is personally liable for the PIP benefits required by the No-Fault Law because she failed to obtain a Florida insurance policy providing the required PIP benefits. See § 627.733(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2019) (“Such security shall 20 be provided . . . [b]y an insurance policy delivered or issued for delivery in this state . . . .”); § 627.733(4), Fla....

...Augstin, 412 So.2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). While it is true that Pearson herself did not purchase insurance on the Oldsmobile, the co-owner did. Consequently, there was a policy covering the Oldsmobile in effect at the time of Pearson’s injuries. Allstate contends that section 627.733(1), Florida Statutes (1987), requires Pearson, as a co-owner, to purchase her own coverage, thereby perhaps duplicating the coverage maintained by Taylor. We disagree. We interpret the requirement of section 627.733(1) that each owner must “maintain security” to mean that each owner must be sure the car is insured....

...NO-FAULT INSURANCE EXEMPTION The School Board also argues on appeal that it should be exempt from reimbursement under section 627.7405(1) because the legislature expressly exempted motor vehicles used as school buses from the statutory requirement to maintain no-fault insurance coverage. See § 627.733(1)(a) (requiring "[e]very owner or registrant of a motor vehicle, other than a motor vehicle used as a school bus ....

...2017) (" 'When the statute is clear and unambiguous,' we look no further than the statute's plain language to determine the [l]egislature's intent and . . . avoid rules of statutory construction." (quoting Daniels v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 898 So. 2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2005))). As such, section 627.733(1)(a) cannot act as a limitation on section 627.7405(1). III....

...Safety National points out that by the terms of its policy with the School Board, it only provides coverage for vehicles owned by the School Board which are required to carry no-fault insurance. It argues that because school buses are exempt from the requirements of section 627.733(1)(a), under the exclusions of its policy, it does not provide no-fault PIP insurance for the School Board's school buses and therefore cannot be considered to be "the insurer of the owner of a commercial motor vehicle" referenced in section 627.7405(1)....

...the insurance required by law. 1 Section 320.02(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), provided that every applicant for registration of a motor vehicle must submit proof that personal injury protection (PIP) benefits have been purchased as required under section 627.733. When Peck purchased his automobile, section 627.733 required PIP benefits to the extent of $5,000 as set forth in section 627.736....

...”for plaintiffs injuries. Appellant argues that no such benefits were payable to him and, further, that as a non-resident driver of a motor vehicle belonging to a non-resident owner, he was not required to maintain Florida no-fault insurance under section 627.733(2)....

without merit. As stated in Farley, supra, section 627.733(4) does not make the uninsured owner an insurer

...Leatherby Insurance Company, 338 So.2d 70 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So.2d 429 (Fla.1977). We cannot, as appellant urges, subscribe to the view that in every instance in which a motor vehicle is inoperable, its owner need not maintain security as required by Section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...extent that the benefits described in § 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be payable but for any exclusion authorized by §§ 627.730-627.7405, under any insurance policy or other method of security complying with the requirements of § 627.733.......

two types of medical benefits: pursuant to section 627.-733, Florida Statutes (1985), the primary and

...Utah defended on the ground such benefits were recoverable only from the owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident, not from the driver of such a vehicle. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment for Utah based upon the applicable statutory, provisions, 1 as follows: Section 627.733(4), Florida Statutes (1979), provided: An owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required by this section who fails to have such security in effect at the time of an accident shall have no immunity from tort liability, but shall be personally liable for the payment of benefits under s....

...ave their own insurance; the statute is not intended to require automobile owners to make sure that other owners have such insurance. As pointed out by appellee, since Williams herself was not an owner of a vehicle at the time of the accident, under section 627.733(4), Williams may recover PIP benefits from the owner of the vehicle which Thomas was driving (Simmons), or Williams may sue Simmons and Thomas in tort....

irrespective of the contract’s actual terms. See § 627.733(3)(a), Florida Statutes; State Farm Mutual Automobile

owners are required to have no-fault insurance. § 627.733, Florida Statutes (1981). This argument is based

...ANALYSIS “The purpose of PIP benefits is to provide up to $10,000 for medical bills and lost wages without regard to fault.” Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 740, 744 (Fla. 2002). Every insurance policy issued in compliance with section 627.733, Florida Statutes (2008), “shall provide personal injury protection to the named insured ....

...Therefore, we interpret the language in section 627.-737 to exempt from tort liability every owner, registrant, operator, or occupant (resident or non-resident) of a motor vehicle with respect to which security, of the type or kind required by ss. 627.730-627.7405, has been provided. Specifically, section 627.733 sets forth the type or kind of security required and includes PIP coverage....

information Pizarro claimed the applicability of Section 627.-733(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1973), and demanded