Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 627.733 (2025)
Required security.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
627.733 Required security.—
(1)(a) Every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle, other than a motor vehicle used as a school bus as defined in s. 1006.25 or limousine, 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 period.
(2) 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.
(3) Such security shall be provided:
(a) By an insurance policy delivered or issued for delivery in this state by an authorized or eligible motor vehicle liability insurer which provides the benefits and exemptions contained in ss. 627.730-627.7405. Any policy of insurance represented or sold as providing the security required hereunder shall be deemed to provide insurance for the payment of the required benefits; or
(b) By any other method authorized by s. 324.031(2) or (3) and approved by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles as affording security equivalent to that afforded by a policy of insurance or by self-insuring as authorized by s. 768.28(16). The person filing such security shall have all of the obligations and rights of an insurer under ss. 627.730-627.7405.
(4) 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.
(5) In addition to other persons who are not required to provide required security as required under this section and s. 324.022, the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle is exempt from such requirements if she or he is a member of the United States Armed Forces and is called to or on active duty outside the United States in an emergency situation. The exemption provided by this subsection applies only as long as the member of the armed forces is on such active duty outside the United States and applies only while the vehicle covered by the security required by this section and s. 324.022 is not operated by any person. Upon receipt of a written request by the insured to whom the exemption provided in this subsection applies, the insurer shall cancel the coverages and return any unearned premium or suspend the security required by this section and s. 324.022. Notwithstanding s. 324.0221(2), the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles may not suspend the registration or operator’s license of any owner or registrant of a motor vehicle during the time she or he qualifies for an exemption under this subsection. Any owner or registrant of a motor vehicle who qualifies for an exemption under this subsection shall immediately notify the department prior to and at the end of the expiration of the exemption.
History.—ss. 4, 6, ch. 71-252; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 8, ch. 77-118; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 31, 32, ch. 77-468; s. 11, ch. 78-374; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 552, 563, ch. 82-243; s. 69, ch. 82-386; ss. 4, 6, ch. 86-182; s. 18, ch. 88-370; s. 57, ch. 89-282; s. 5, ch. 91-106; s. 4, ch. 91-110; s. 1, ch. 91-128; s. 77, ch. 93-120; s. 7, ch. 95-202; s. 30, ch. 95-211; s. 2, ch. 97-84; s. 362, ch. 97-102; s. 14, ch. 98-223; s. 34, ch. 99-3; ss. 63, 317, ch. 99-248; s. 1031, ch. 2002-387; s. 19, ch. 2003-2; s. 19, ch. 2003-411; s. 123, ch. 2004-5; s. 47, ch. 2006-290; s. 4, ch. 2007-150; s. 11, ch. 2007-324; s. 90, ch. 2013-160.
Note.—Consolidation of s. 627.733 and former s. 627.735.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974).
Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974). “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.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006). “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).”
Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “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).”
Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1977). “Specifically, she relies upon the language of Section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1975).”
Menendez v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2010). “See § 627.733, Fla. Stat. (2006). The “Required Personal Injury Protection” provision, or the PIP statute, is codified at section 627.”
Epperson v. Dixie Ins. Co., 461 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). “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. All insurance policies issued for vehicles required to have security under that…”
State v. Bradford, 787 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2001). “…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. (2000).”
Young v. Progressive Se. Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2000). “Similarly, motorists can meet the insurance requirements of the Florida Motor Vehicle No Fault Law by self-insuring as authorized by section 324.”
Ward v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 364 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). “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…”
Garcia Ex Rel. Est. of Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 2d 821 (M.D. Fla. 2007). “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 ,000 for combined property damage and bodily injury liability for any one crash), and Fla. Stat. §…”
Ward v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins., 375 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “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] .”
Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kwechin, 447 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1983). “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…”
— 627.733(1) — 17 cases
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006). “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).”
Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “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).”
Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974). “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.”
Ward v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins., 375 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “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] .”
Epperson v. Dixie Ins. Co., 461 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). “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. All insurance policies issued for vehicles required to have security under that…”
— 627.733(1)(a) — 1 case
Saf. Nat'l Cas. Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd. (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
— 627.733(2) — 4 cases
Epperson v. Dixie Ins. Co., 461 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). “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. All insurance policies issued for vehicles required to have security under that…”
Leinhart v. Jurkovich, 882 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Julian v. Johnson, 438 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Snider v. Wanamaker, 466 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
— 627.733(3) — 3 cases
Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974). “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.”
Ward v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins., 375 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “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] .”
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Florida Hosp. Ocala, Inc. D/B/A Adventhealth Ocala A/A/O Sandra Thomas (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).
— 627.733(3)(a) — 6 cases
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006). “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).”
Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “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).”
Andriakos v. Cavanaugh, 350 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Reeves v. Miller, 418 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Lewis v. Allstate Ins., 425 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
— 627.733(3)(b) — 4 cases
Young v. Progressive Se. Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2000). “Similarly, motorists can meet the insurance requirements of the Florida Motor Vehicle No Fault Law by self-insuring as authorized by section 324.”
Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kwechin, 447 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1983). “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…”
Lipof v. Florida Power & Light Co., 596 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1992).
Dixie Farms, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 343 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
— 627.733(4) — 8 cases
Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974). “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.”
Farley v. Gateway Ins. Co., 302 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
Epperson v. Dixie Ins. Co., 461 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). “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. All insurance policies issued for vehicles required to have security under that…”
Holt v. King, 707 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Greyhound Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Carbon, 327 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
— 627.733(5) — 1 case
Hepler v. Atlas Mut. Ins. Co., 501 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.