Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 627.734 (2025)
Proof of security; security requirements; penalties.
✓ 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
627.734 Proof of security; security requirements; penalties.—
(1) The provisions of chapter 324 which pertain to the method of giving and maintaining proof of financial responsibility and which govern and define a motor vehicle liability policy shall apply to filing and maintaining proof of security required by ss. 627.730-627.7405.
(2) Any person who:
(a) Gives information required in a report or otherwise as provided for in ss. 627.730-627.7405, knowing or having reason to believe that such information is false;
(b) Forges or, without authority, signs any evidence of proof of security; or
(c) Files, or offers for filing, any such evidence of proof, knowing or having reason to believe that it is forged or signed without authority,
is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—ss. 5, 5A, ch. 71-252; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 553, 563, ch. 82-243; s. 155, ch. 91-224; s. 19, ch. 2003-411; s. 12, ch. 2007-324.
Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 627.734
M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd§627.734(2a)FRAUD-FALSE STATEMENTGIVE FALSE VEHICLE INSURNACE REPORT
§627.734(2b)FORGERY OFSIGN W/O AUTHORITY VEHICLE PROOF OF SECURITY
§627.734(2c)FORGERYOFFER FILE FORGED W/O AUTH VEH PROOF SECURITY
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1978–1987 · leading case: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 415 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 415 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). “§ 627.734(3), Fla. Stat. (1981). This statute was intended to exempt governmental bodies from having to obtain no-fault coverage on vehicles that they own and was not intended to take government vehicles out of the definition of *49 "motor vehicles.”
Heredia v. Allstate Ins. Co., 358 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 1978). “, §§ 627.734(1), and 627.735(1), Fla. Stat.”
Russ v. Iswarin, 429 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). “…the provisions of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act are not applicable to municipally owned vehicles. § 627.734(3), Fla. Stat. (1979).”
Ward v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd., 447 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “Section 627.734 provides that sections 627.”
Maglio v. Neca-Ibew Welfare Trust Fund, 506 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). “2d DCA 1984) (section 627.734, excluding government owned vehicles from sections 627.”
Lewis v. Allstate Ins., 425 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “Section 627.734, Florida Statutes, relating to “Security Requirements,” merely exempts governmental entities from the required provisions of such benefits, and does not affect the obligations of private parties as are involved in the present case.”
— 627.734(1) — 1 case
Heredia v. Allstate Ins. Co., 358 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 1978). “, §§ 627.734(1), and 627.735(1), Fla. Stat.”
— 627.734(3) — 3 cases
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 415 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). “§ 627.734(3), Fla. Stat. (1981). This statute was intended to exempt governmental bodies from having to obtain no-fault coverage on vehicles that they own and was not intended to take government vehicles out of the definition of *49 "motor vehicles.”
Russ v. Iswarin, 429 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). “…the provisions of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act are not applicable to municipally owned vehicles. § 627.734(3), Fla. Stat. (1979).”
Ward v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd., 447 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “Section 627.734 provides that sections 627.”
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.