Kumarsingh v. Pv Holding Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D06-2791.,3D06-2791. |
| Citation | 983 So.2d 599 |
| Parties | Deopersad KUMARSINGH and Rosalie Kumarsingh, Appellants, v. PV HOLDING CORP. and Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Before GREEN, WELLS and SUAREZ, JJ.
OPINION ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
We grant petitioner's motion for clarification and, accordingly, withdraw our opinion issued October 3, 2007, and substitute in its place this clarifying opinion.
On December 23, 2004, Juan Ortiz crashed his rental car into the Kumarsinghs' vehicle. Ortiz had rented the car from Avis with a valid Mexican driver's license. Ortiz was uninsured. Mr. Kumarsingh was permanently injured in the accident, and the combined total stipulated damages of Mr. and Mrs. Kumarsingh were in the sum of $100,000. The plaintiffs filed suit against PV Holding Corp. and Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., on November 7, 2005, alleging vicarious liability as owners/lessors of the car, and negligent entrustment.1 The defendants answered that they were immune from vicarious liability pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (2005),2 also known as the Graves Amendment, which became effective August 10, 2005, prior to the plaintiffs filing suit. After hearing argument on the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the trial court granted the motion, concluding that the federal statute abrogated subparagraph 324.021(9)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2005), Florida's statute governing vicarious liability of auto lessors, as of the federal statute's effective date and that but for the Graves Amendment, the trial court would have entered judgment in plaintiffs' favor up to the state's statutory vicarious liability caps. The trial court found that the defendants were liable only up to the limits of the statutory self-insurance financial responsibility minimums as set forth in subsection 324.021(7), or $10,000, and so ordered. The plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm.
The Graves Amendment provides that a lessor of a motor vehicle shall not be liable under the law of any state by reason of being the owner, for harm that arises out of the use of the vehicle during the lease period if the owner is engaged in the trade of renting vehicles and there is no owner negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the owner's part. The amendment provides exemptions, in that it does not supersede any state law that imposes minimum financial responsibility on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vargas v. Enterprises Leasing Co.
...liability targeted by the Graves Amendment, a liability derived from a status as owner, rather than fault. See Kumarsingh v. PV Holding Corp., 983 So.2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Vargas seeks to recover from Enterprise solely on the basis of vicarious Vargas's lawsuit is preempted unless sect......
-
Rosado v. Daimlerchrysler Financial Servs.
...Richardson, 995 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Vargas v. Enter. Leasing Co., 993 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Kumarsingh v. PV Holding Corp., 983 So.2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Much of that discussion is relevant to this case, and it convinces us that the trial court properly entered summ......
-
Sigaran v. ELRAC, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 52569(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 12/23/2008)
...e.g., Mitchell — Mckenna v. Tick, 2008 Conn. Super Lexis 228 [Superior Ct. 2008])and (2) Florida(see, Kumarsingh v. PV Holding Corp., 983 So.2d 599 (Fla. Ct. App. 3rd Dist 2008);and Bechina v. Enter. Leasing Co., 972 So.2d 925 [Fla. Ct. App. 3rd Dist 2007]). At least one Florida Court indic......
-
Karling v. Budget Rent a Car System, Inc.
...Florida's intermediate appellate courts that have addressed this issue have now reached the same conclusion. See Kumarsingh v. PV Holding Corp., 983 So.2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), rev. denied, 984 So.2d 519 (Fla.2008); Bechina v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 972 So.2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); St. ......