Reynolds v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 80-823
| Decision Date | 10 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-823,80-823 |
| Citation | 399 So.2d 519 |
| Parties | Mark A. REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. The LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John L. McFadyen, Pinellas Park, for appellant.
David L. Bresler of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, St. Petersburg, for appellee The Life Insurance Company of Virginia.
Appellee issued a policy of insurance to appellant providing coverage for medical expenses. The policy contained the following provision:
REDUCTION: Benefits payable under this policy will be reduced by the amount of benefits payable for the same loss pursuant to a Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, or similar law.
The Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, and any other similar act, is to be considered a Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law.
Appellant was injured in an automobile accident while driving an automobile owned by him which was not covered by insurance affording him personal injury protection (PIP) benefits as required by the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act. §§ 627.730-627.741, Fla.Stat. (1979). He incurred medical expenses in excess of $11,000 which would be entirely covered by appellee's insurance policy but for the reduction provision set forth above. Appellee took the position that the reduction provision applied and paid only those medical expenses of appellant in excess of $5,000 (the measurement of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits then applicable under section 627.736). Appellant brought this suit to collect the $5,000 withheld by appellee and suffered an adverse final judgment. We reverse.
We reject appellee's argument that this case is distinguishable from our decision in Ward v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 364 So.2d 73 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). In the Ward case, we considered two insurance policy provisions purporting to reduce coverage to the extent of PIP benefits, as those provisions applied to claimants who owned motor vehicles and failed to have no-fault insurance as required by Florida law. One policy provided that coverage was to be excess over "any personal injury protection benefits paid or payable." The other provided that benefits were to be over and above "any personal injury protection benefits that are paid or payable ... under this or any policy." We held that, since there was no insurance policy under which PIP benefits were paid or payable to either claimant, these exclusionary provisions did not have the effect of reducing coverage by the amount of PIP benefits then required under a no-fault insurance policy.
Appellee argues that Ward is distinguishable from this case because here, unlike the situation in Ward, the reduction provision in appellee's insurance policy refers to benefits payable pursuant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Kemper Ins. Co., Inc. v. Health Ins. Admin., Inc., Docket No. 74545
...rather, the statutory scheme contemplates that PIP benefits will be paid under the required insurance. Reynolds v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 399 So.2d 519, 520 (Fla.App., 1981), lv. den. 411 So.2d 383 (Fla., Thus, we agree with the Court of Appeals characterization of the two policies as c......
-
Jedlicka v. Proctor, 96-04944
...supports Jedlicka in his contention. Thus, we reverse on this issue. The reversible issue is controlled by Reynolds v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia, 399 So.2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and Ward v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 364 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), which hold that it is e......
- Life Insurance Co. of Virginia v. Reynolds