Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 627.737 (2025)
Tort exemption; limitation on right to damages; punitive damages.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes: through the 2025 Regular Session (some sections already show 2026 laws)
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 Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974).
Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 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, 415 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 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 Gen. Ins. Co., 838 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2016). “Fla. Stat. § 627.737 (2)(b)) (emphasis added).”
Mansfield v. Rivero, 620 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 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, 614 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 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, 454 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 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, 638 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1994). “.. within a reasonable degree of medical probability.”
Meyer v. Hutchinson, 861 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 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, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 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, 64 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 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, 447 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 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, 761 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 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 Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 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, 620 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 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…”
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 808 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2001).
Norman v. Farrow, 880 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2004).
Medina v. Peralta, 724 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1999).
627.737(2): 111 cases
Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 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, 415 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 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, 454 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 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, 614 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 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, 373 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
627.737(2)(a): 7 cases
Meyer v. Hutchinson, 861 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “Section 627.737, Florida Statutes, is the authority for a "threshold defense" under which Meyer contends her Michigan insurance policy provides.”
Newton v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Dixon, 732 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Custer Med. Ctr., 990 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Terri Van Winkle, PA v. Johnston, 813 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
627.737(2)(b): 19 cases
Eley v. Moris, 478 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 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, 64 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 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, 681 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Est. of Wallace v. Fisher, 567 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
627.737(2)(c): 3 cases
Sullivan v. Price, 368 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Cirillo-Meijer, 50 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Kipp Cooper & Classic Plumbing of Brevard, LLC Vs Tammy Gonzalez, 374 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).
627.737(2)(e): 8 cases
Snowden v. Sprouse, 375 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Howard v. Newman, 363 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
White v. Arvanitis, 424 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Nat'l Car Rental v. Sanchez, 349 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
627.737(3): 6 cases
Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2000). “Lastly, we disagree with the dissents in this case that our prior case law construing section 627.737(3) mandates a contrary result.”
Calhoun v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 354 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1978).
Snowden v. Sprouse, 375 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Snider v. Wanamaker, 466 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Bell v. Deloach, 49 Fla. Supp. 197 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty. 1979).
627.737(4): 2 cases
Edwards v. Safeguard Ins., 323 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (M.D. Fla. 2004).
Hollis v. Allstate Ins., 10 Fla. Supp. 2d 65 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985).
627.737(l): 1 case
Enriquez v. Clark, 692 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 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.