627.737
Tort exemption; limitation on right to damages; punitive damages.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
627.737 Tort exemption; limitation on right to damages; punitive damages.—
(1) Every owner, registrant, operator, or occupant of a motor vehicle with respect to which security has been provided as required by ss. 627.730-627.7405, and every person or organization legally responsible for her or his acts or omissions, is hereby exempted from tort liability for damages because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of such motor vehicle in this state to the 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).
(2) In any action of tort brought against the owner, registrant, operator, or occupant of a motor vehicle with respect to which security has been provided as required by ss. 627.730-627.7405, or against any person or organization legally responsible for her or his acts or omissions, a plaintiff may recover damages in tort for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, or use of such motor vehicle only in the event that the injury or disease consists in whole or in part of:
(a) Significant and permanent loss of an important bodily function.
(b) Permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement.
(c) Significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement.
(d) Death.
(3) When a defendant, in a proceeding brought pursuant to ss. 627.730-627.7405, questions whether the plaintiff has met the requirements of subsection (2), then the defendant may file an appropriate motion with the court, and the court shall, on a one-time basis only, 30 days before the date set for the trial or the pretrial hearing, whichever is first, by examining the pleadings and the evidence before it, ascertain whether the plaintiff will be able to submit some evidence that the plaintiff will meet the requirements of subsection (2). If the court finds that the plaintiff will not be able to submit such evidence, then the court shall dismiss the plaintiff’s claim without prejudice.
(4) In any action brought against an automobile liability insurer for damages in excess of its policy limits, no claim for punitive damages shall be allowed.
History.—s. 8, ch. 71-252; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 5, ch. 76-266; s. 1, ch. 77-457; s. 35, ch. 77-468; s. 4, ch. 78-374; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 555, 563, ch. 82-243; s. 363, ch. 97-102; s. 19, ch. 2003-411; s. 14, ch. 2007-324.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 209
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company
Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company (1974)
“, entitled "Tort Exemption," there is an exemption from tort liability for damages because of bodily injuries, sickness or disease arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle in this State.”
Chapman v. Dillon (1982)
“In exchange for his previous right to damages for pain and suffering (in the limited class of cases where recovery of these elements of damage is barred by § 627.737), with recovery limited to those situations where he he can prove that the other party was at fault, the injured…”
Catherine S. Cadle v. GEICO General Insurance Company (2016)
“Fla. Stat. § 627.737 (2)(b)) (emphasis added).”
Mansfield v. Rivero (1993)
“3d DCA 1991), in which the Third District Court of Appeal held that an injured party's recovery for unpaid medical bills for a non-permanent injury should not be reduced by the amount of benefits recoverable under the injured party's personal injury protection policy, rejecting…”
Easkold v. Rhodes (1993)
“The jury found that Morey did not sustain a permanent injury under section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes (1985), [1] and the court entered judgment in favor of Harper.”
Fay v. Mincey (1984)
“Appellees filed an answer denying Mincey's negligence and asserted Fay's comparative negligence as one defense and the "no-fault" tort liability exemption provision of section 627.737 as a second defense. The following is a chronicle of Fay's encounters with the health-care…”
City of Tampa v. Long (1994)
“.. within a reasonable degree of medical probability.”
Meyer v. Hutchinson (2003)
“Section 627.737, Florida Statutes, is the authority for a "threshold defense" under which Meyer contends her Michigan insurance policy provides.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols (2006)
“§ 627.737, Fla. Stat. (2001). Thus, the injured insured becomes totally dependent on his or her insurance carrier for payment of these necessary costs.”
Wald v. Grainger (2011)
“The First District concluded that section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes (2007), precluded the jury from awarding Wald damages based on the permanency of the thigh injury because it did not cause “pain, suffering, mental anguish, or inconvenience” where defense counsel had stated…”
Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Worthy (1984)
“Section 627.737, Florida Statutes, gave exemption from tort liability to the extent of the PIP benefits payable under section 627.”
Rollins v. Pizzarelli (2000)
“Lastly, we disagree with the dissents in this case that our prior case law construing section 627.737(3) mandates a contrary result.”
— 627.737(1) — 22 cases
Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company (1974)
“, entitled "Tort Exemption," there is an exemption from tort liability for damages because of bodily injuries, sickness or disease arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle in this State.”
Mansfield v. Rivero (1993)
“3d DCA 1991), in which the Third District Court of Appeal held that an injured party's recovery for unpaid medical bills for a non-permanent injury should not be reduced by the amount of benefits recoverable under the injured party's personal injury protection policy, rejecting…”
Norman v. Farrow (2004)
Medina v. Peralta (1999)
— 627.737(2) — 111 cases
Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company (1974)
“, entitled "Tort Exemption," there is an exemption from tort liability for damages because of bodily injuries, sickness or disease arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle in this State.”
Chapman v. Dillon (1982)
“In exchange for his previous right to damages for pain and suffering (in the limited class of cases where recovery of these elements of damage is barred by § 627.737), with recovery limited to those situations where he he can prove that the other party was at fault, the injured…”
Fay v. Mincey (1984)
“Appellees filed an answer denying Mincey's negligence and asserted Fay's comparative negligence as one defense and the "no-fault" tort liability exemption provision of section 627.737 as a second defense. The following is a chronicle of Fay's encounters with the health-care…”
Easkold v. Rhodes (1993)
“The jury found that Morey did not sustain a permanent injury under section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes (1985), [1] and the court entered judgment in favor of Harper.”
Carter v. Cross (1979)
— 627.737(2)(a) — 7 cases
Meyer v. Hutchinson (2003)
“Section 627.737, Florida Statutes, is the authority for a "threshold defense" under which Meyer contends her Michigan insurance policy provides.”
— 627.737(2)(b) — 19 cases
Eley v. Moris (1985)
Easkold v. Rhodes (1993)
“The jury found that Morey did not sustain a permanent injury under section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes (1985), [1] and the court entered judgment in favor of Harper.”
Wald v. Grainger (2011)
“The First District concluded that section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes (2007), precluded the jury from awarding Wald damages based on the permanency of the thigh injury because it did not cause “pain, suffering, mental anguish, or inconvenience” where defense counsel had stated…”
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse (1996)
Estate of Wallace v. Fisher (1990)
— 627.737(2)(c) — 3 cases
Sullivan v. Price (1979)
— 627.737(2)(e) — 8 cases
Snowden v. Sprouse (1979)
Howard v. Newman (1978)
White v. Arvanitis (1982)
Greene v. Flewelling (1978)
— 627.737(3) — 6 cases
Rollins v. Pizzarelli (2000)
“Lastly, we disagree with the dissents in this case that our prior case law construing section 627.737(3) mandates a contrary result.”
Snowden v. Sprouse (1979)
Snider v. Wanamaker (1985)
Bell v. Deloach (1979)
— 627.737(4) — 2 cases
Hollis v. Allstate Insurance (1985)
— 627.737(l) — 1 case
Enriquez v. Clark (1997)
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.