Annotations, Discussions, Cases:
Cases Citing Statute 627.739
Total Results: 53
415 So. 2d 12
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 1982 | Docket: 1512942
Cited 21 times | Published
...Plaintiffs responded with the contention that section 627.737 is unconstitutional as a denial of access to courts, due process, and equal protection. The trial court issued an order holding for the defendants and finding the statute constitutional. On appeal, the district court found sections 627.736(1), [1] 627.737, [2] and 627.739 [3] of *15 the no-fault statute unconstitutional....
...The district court recognized that in Lasky we held that the denial of the right to recover such damages did not violate this constitutional provision because the legislature had established a reasonable alternative. The court concluded, however, that subsequent changes in sections 637.736, 627.737, and 627.739 rendered the alternative no longer reasonable....
...Chapter 77-468, section 33, Laws of Florida, amended that section reducing the benefits to 80% of medical expenses and 80% or 60% of lost income. Other provisions in the no-fault act when Lasky was decided required PIP coverage of $5,000, section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1971), with a maximum deductible of $1,000. § 627.739, Fla....
...Thus the provisions of section 627.737 still provide a reasonable alternative to the traditional action in tort and therefore do not violate the right of access to courts guaranteed by article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution. *18 DUE PROCESS OF LAW The district court found that sections 627.736(1), 627.737(1), and 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1979), unconstitutionally denied due process in that they did not bear a reasonable relationship to permissible legislative objectives. The district court explained: The changes to sections 627.736, 627.737 and 627.739 noted above cause the 1979 no-fault act to no longer be reasonably related to several of the permissible legislative objectives noted in Lasky: (1) injured parties are able to initiate suits for expenses not payable by an insurer thereby obvi...
...r damages to recompense them, while not granting such right of recovery to those substantially less likely to incur any prolonged pain. Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Co., 296 So.2d at 19. In conclusion, we find that sections 627.736(1), 627.737, and 627.739 of the Florida Statutes (1979), do not violate the rights of access to courts, due process, or equal protection....
...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. [3] 627.739 Personal injury protection; optional limitations; deductibles; optional methods of payment for repair work....
447 So. 2d 1337, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 3114
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 1983 | Docket: 1311775
Cited 16 times | Published
...Ten days later, Kwechin was injured in an automobile accident and sought compensation from the insurance company. The insurer refused to pay any medical expenses below the $4,000 deductible amount provided. Kwechin brought suit, claiming the policy as issued violated section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977) and that the insurance company was liable for medical expenses under the $4,000 threshhold, the deductible provision notwithstanding. Both parties moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The district court reversed and certified the question we now address. Section 627.739 provides, in pertinent part: In order to prevent duplication with other private or governmental insurance or benefits for senior citizens and others with access to such insurance or benefits, each insurer providing the coverage and benefits described in s....
...ith the possibility of swelling the public relief rolls. Id. at 16 (emphasis supplied). This enunciation of the general policy underlying the No-Fault Insurance Law is in no way in conflict with the specific policy set forth in the first sentence of section 627.739: "In order to prevent duplication with other ......
...The express authorization of deductibles in the enumerated situations implies the prohibition against them in all other situations according to the rule of statutory construction inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. Further support for this reading of section 627.739 comes from reading it in pari materia with the rest of Florida's No-Fault Insurance Law....
...This section provides that any amount paid from a collateral source may be set off against any amount payable from insurance coverage mandated by the act. To require payment for coverage which is redundant, therefore uncollectable, would be inequitable. Hence, section 627.739 provides for a deductible to prevent overlapping coverage....
...BOYD, Justice, dissenting. Consistent with Chapman v. Dillon, 415 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1982), and Lasky v. State Farm Insurance, 296 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1974), I would uphold the statutory approval of a $4,000 optional deductible in personal injury protection policies, § 627.739(1), Fla....
440 So. 2d 612, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24136
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 8, 1983 | Docket: 323069
Cited 12 times | Published
...The question presented for review is whether a liability insurance policy is governed by the law in effect at the time the policy is issued or by the law at the time a claim arises. The law in effect at the time the insurance contract was executed controls. We reverse. Under section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1975) [in effect when the policy was issued], an insured could purchase deductible PIP benefits at his option....
...ance would be liable as if there were no deductible. Kwechin v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 409 So.2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Ceballos purchased personal injury protection insurance with a $2,000 deductible from Lumbermens before the amendment to section 627.739, Florida Statutes took effect....
...under that contract. See Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Fugate, 313 F.2d 788 (5th Cir.1963); Allison v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co., 222 So.2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Poole v. Travelers Ins. Co., 130 Fla. 806, 179 So. 138 (1937). Applying section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977) to contracts entered into before the statute was effective would constitute a legislative impairment of contract in violation of article I, section 10 of the Florida Constitution....
...t worker's compensation benefits are therefore determined by the law in effect at the date of the event creating a claim. There was no comparable special duty on an insurance carrier providing PIP insurance prior to the effective date of the amended section 627.739, Florida Statutes....
552 So. 2d 908
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 5, 1989 | Docket: 1663481
Cited 11 times | Published
...Stein of Blackwell, Walker, Facell & Hoehl, Miami, for appellant. Stacey F. Soloff of Freshman, Freshman & Traitz, P.A., Miami, for appellee. EHRLICH, Chief Justice. These consolidated cases present the issue of whether the deductible amounts authorized under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1985 and 1987), reduce the statutorily mandated personal injury protection (PIP) coverage limits of $10,000....
...thout reference to the deductible and the deductible or 2) the limits of the policy in this case $10,000. Because Arnone was pending before this Court, the Third District Court of Appeal certified the cause to this Court for immediate resolution. Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000 and $2,000, such amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction....
...atute calls for the application of the 80% *910 reduction in order to determine the "benefits otherwise due" under the policy before application of the deductible. 502 So.2d at 914 (citations omitted). The district court further concluded that under section 627.739(2) the deductible should be applied as a threshold to recovery rather than as a means to reduce coverage....
...The policy limits in that case were $5,000 with a deductible of $4,000. [3] The Fifth District held that the insurer's liability was $1,000, the benefits otherwise due of $5,000 minus the $4,000 deductible. In the instant case, believing that this Court approved its construction of the section 627.739(2) when we approved its decision in Govan and disapproved Thibodeau and Cowan, the district court held that the term "benefits otherwise due" relates to the "`Required Benefits' mandated by section 627.736 et seq....
...o a deductible, but the insurer shall be liable for such benefits up to the $10,000 policy limits mandated by the PIP statute. In Govan, the sole issue with which we were presented was the interrelationship of the deductible amounts authorized under section 627.739(2) and the coinsurance percentages by which eligible benefits under section 627.736(1) are to be reduced....
...cation of the coinsurance percentages exceeds the policy limits then *911 the "benefits otherwise due" are the policy limits. The Department has approved PIP policies, such as those at issue, which provide that the deductible amount authorized under section 627.739(2) is to be deducted from the lesser of the recoverable lost wages and medical expenses under section 627.736(1) or the policy limits....
...lter the point at which an insurance company's obligation to pay will ripen. American Nurses Assoc. v. Passaic General Hosp., 98 N.J. 83, 88-90, 484 A.2d 670, 673 (1984). The district court below reasoned that the deductible amounts authorized under section 627.739(2) should be utilized "as a threshold to recovery and not as a means to reduce coverage." Arnone, 528 So.2d at 919....
...[5] In construing the term "benefits otherwise due," the district court below overlooked the fact that "required benefits" are eligible benefits set forth in section 627.736(1) "to a limit of $10,000." Based on the plain language of sections 627.736(1) and 627.739(2), we hold that these provisions provide for the authorized deductible amounts to be subtracted from the lesser of the eligible benefits after application of the coinsurance percentages of sections 627.736(1)(a) and (b) or the statutorily mandated coverage limit of $10,000....
...If the total amount of such loss and expense exceeds such deductible, the total limit of benefits the Company is obligated to pay shall be the difference between such deductible amount and the applicable limit of the Company's liability. (Emphasis added.) [2] Sections 627.736, 627.739, Florida Statutes (1975 and Supp....
...[3] The 1977 personal injury protection scheme at issue in Thibodeau v. Allstate Insurance Co., 391 So.2d 805 (Fla. 1980), disapproved, Govan v. International Bankers Insurance Co., 521 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1988), provided for a maximum deductible of $4,000 and coverage up a limit of $5,000. §§ 627.736(1), 627.739(1), Fla. Stat. (1977). [4] The coinsurance percentages became part of Florida's PIP scheme in September 1977. Ch. 77-468, § 33, Laws of Fla. Cowan involved the 1975 and 1976 versions of sections 627.736 and 627.739....
...Although the 1977 scheme was employed in Thibodeau, the relationship between the deductible and the coinsurance percentages was not at issue. [5] Benefits for funeral and burial expenses which are provided for in section 627.736(1)(c) are exempt from application of the deductible, pursuant to section 627.739(2).
620 So. 2d 987, 1993 WL 186037
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 1993 | Docket: 1386997
Cited 11 times | Published
...medical expenses from their own PIP carrier. Consequently, under this statutory scheme, the Mansfields are obligated to pay the remaining 20% of these expenses. This calculation should not be confused with the optional deductible provided for under section 627.739, which allows an insured to elect a $250, $500, $1,000, or $2,000 deductible from the benefits the insured is entitled to receive from the insured's PIP carrier.
769 So. 2d 1053, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9709, 2000 WL 1055958
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 2000 | Docket: 1476325
Cited 11 times | Published
...Thereafter, Ramon filed the instant action styled "class representation," claiming that Aries had erroneously applied the insured's deductible to him and that he was the representative of a class of persons similarly situated. Ramon's complaint alleged that Aries violated section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1999), by making payment of medical bills under the provisions of its PIP coverage but applying the deductible to the claim even though the claimant was not the named insured or a dependent relative residing in the same household or a pedestrian....
404 So. 2d 354
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1981 | Docket: 1768175
Cited 10 times | Published
...." Another change which diminishes from the adequacy of the 1979 no-fault act is the increase of the allowable deductibles. Under the 1972 act, the required personal injury protection (PIP) coverage was $5,000.00 with a maximum deductible of $1,000.00. Sec. 627.739(1), Fla. Stat. (1971). The 1979 no-fault act requires PIP coverage of $10,000.00 but the maximum allowable deductible is $8,000.00. Sec. 627.739(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). This change means that the 1979 act allows for decreased PIP coverage. These changes to sections 627.736, 627.737 and 627.739 mean that these provisions no longer provide a reasonable alternative for redress of injuries suffered in automobile accidents....
...We find that the Legislature has not shown any public necessity different from that which was present when the Lasky court considered the 1972 no-fault act. The provisions upheld in Lasky thereby constitute an alternative method for meeting such necessity. DUE PROCESS We also find that sections 627.736(1), 627.737(1), and 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1979), cause plaintiffs' due process rights to be violated and are thus unconstitutional....
...ich was supposedly unduly costly; and (6) correcting the situation in which the pressing necessity of paying medical bills often forced an injured party to accept an unduly small settlement for his claim. The changes to sections 627.736, 627.737 and 627.739 noted above cause the 1979 no-fault act to no longer be reasonably related to several of the permissible legislative objectives noted in Lasky : (1) injured parties are able to initiate suits for expenses not payable by an insurer thereby obv...
...provisions precluding full compensation for medical expenses and lost income but enabling suit for part of these damages establishes a slow and inefficient tort system for reparations. The increase of the permissible amount deductible as provided by section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1979), is also discriminatory and oppressive....
...We must follow this declaration of our supreme court in Lasky supporting the conclusion that the threshold provisions of the 1979 no-fault act do not deny plaintiffs their right to equal protection. Accordingly, the order of the trial court which found sections 627.737 and 627.739, Florida Statutes (1979), constitutional, granting defendants' summary judgment *359 and in the alternative granting defendants' motion to dismiss is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings....
584 So. 2d 1012, 1991 WL 60848
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 1991 | Docket: 1515183
Cited 9 times | Published
...Matthews, 498 So.2d 421, 422 (Fla. 1986). The record establishes that the Riveros' insurance carrier has refused to provide them any benefits; no rule requires them to recover from the carrier. Finally, we are not convinced by appellees' assertion that section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1983), requires the subtraction of the amount of the Riveros' deductible from the jury award. Section 627.739(1), contains no mandate that a tortfeasor's obligation to pay damages be reduced by the amount of the victim's deductible....
...from an initial organic injury." Jones, 547 So.2d at 201. Although in some cases, permanent pain may constitute permanent injury, the factfinder must base its decision as to permanence on all the testimony and evidence. [2] Subsequent amendments to section 627.739 have not altered the legislative purpose of the statute....
675 So. 2d 112, 1996 WL 296519
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 1996 | Docket: 1323038
Cited 7 times | Published
...Reis of Sparkman, Robb, Nelson & Mason, Miami, for Respondent. HARDING, Justice. We have for review Newkirk v. Hannah, 655 So.2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following question as being one of great public importance: DOES SECTION 627.739(1), FLORIDA STATUTES, MANDATE THAT A TRIAL COURT SET OFF THE AMOUNT OF THE INJURED PARTY'S ELECTED PIP DEDUCTIBLE AND THE AMOUNT OF BENEFITS PAID BY *113 THE PIP CARRIER FROM A VERDICT AGAINST A TORTFEASOR? Id....
...A judgment was entered against Newkirk in the amount of $3,146.28. Newkirk appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal claiming that the trial court erred in failing to set off the amount of Hannah's PIP deductible from the jury verdict pursuant to section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1989). [1] The district court reversed the trial court's ruling and held that the plain language of section 627.739(1) mandates that a trial court, in addition to reducing the verdict by the amount of benefits paid by the PIP carrier, set off the amount of the injured party's elected PIP deductible from the verdict against the tortfeasor....
...However, in light of a footnote in this Court's opinion in Mansfield v. Rivero, 620 So.2d 987, 990 n. 2 (Fla.1993), [2] the district court certified the above question as one of great public importance. Newkirk, 655 So.2d at 242. Hannah argues that the legislative purpose behind section 627.739(1) is to ensure complete insurance coverage for injuries, not to deprive a successful plaintiff of damages awarded by a jury. Citing the Mansfield footnote, Hannah argues that section 627.739(1) does not require a set-off of a PIP deductible from a jury verdict. Hannah further states that holding otherwise would essentially deem the injured party self-insured for the amount of his deductible. Newkirk, on the other hand, contends that the plain meaning of section 627.739(1) necessarily mandates that a plaintiff's PIP deductible be subtracted from a jury award....
...v. Sims, 464 So.2d 251, 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). She further notes that in electing a deductible an insured party pays a lower insurance premium and becomes a self-insurer as to that deductible. We agree with both the district court and Newkirk that section 627.739(1) precludes a successful plaintiff from recovering the PIP deductible from a tortfeasor. This Court has consistently held that unambiguous statutory language must be accorded its plain meaning. *114 See Carson v. Miller, 370 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 1979). Section 627.739(1) provides that "[a]ny person electing a deductible or modified coverage ......
...627.730-627.7405." (Emphasis added). It follows that where a plaintiff has elected a PIP deductible, it must be subtracted from the jury verdict against a tortfeasor. See generally Verdecia v. American Risk Assurance Co., 543 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA) (holding that section 627.739(1), the statutory provision which eliminates the tort remedy against the tortfeasor for the PIP deductible, is constitutional), review denied, 551 So.2d 464 (Fla.1989)....
...ding possibly incomplete coverage. Chapman, 415 So.2d at 18. We find Hannah's reliance on the Mansfield footnote to be misplaced for several reasons. First, our opinion quashed the district court's decision, which included the same interpretation of section 627.739(1) that Hannah asserts here, namely that the statute does not require that a tortfeasor's obligation to pay damages be reduced by the amount of the victim's PIP deductible. See Rivero v. Mansfield, 584 So.2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), quashed, 620 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1993). Second, section 627.739(1) was not the basis for our decision in Mansfield, but was cited in the footnote in order to distinguish it from the calculations made in accordance with sections 627.736(1) and section 627.737(1). Thus, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and hold that section 627.739(1) requires that the amount awarded to a plaintiff be reduced by the plaintiff's elected PIP deductible....
...a motion within thirty days after entry of judgment or after voluntary or involuntary dismissal. A plain reading of the statute does not provide for attorney fees on appeal, and the Court should not write such a provision into the statute. NOTES [1] Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: The named insured may elect a deductible to apply to the named insured alone or to the named insured and dependent relatives residing in the same household, but may not elect a deductible to apply to any other person covered under the policy....
...cent that the tortfeasor was obligated to pay, in accordance with sections 627.737(1) and 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1983). The footnote also provided that "[t]his calculation should not be confused with the optional deductible provided for under section 627.739." Id....
521 So. 2d 1086, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 181, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 340, 1988 WL 20997
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 1988 | Docket: 1347860
Cited 6 times | Published
...This is a petition to review International Bankers Insurance Co. v. Govan, 502 So.2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), in which the district court of appeal determined the proper method to compute the deductibility provisions for medical and wage-loss benefits under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1983)....
...nsurance policy which covered eighty percent of his medical expenses up to the maximum amount of $10,000 for any single accident, as mandated by section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983). A $2,000 deductible from these benefits is authorized by section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1983), which provides: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000 and $2,000, such amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction....
...The district court reversed and held that the eighty percent calculation should be made before the deductible is subtracted. It explained: The parties agree that the answer to the issue lies in the meaning of the phrase "benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction" contained in section 627.739(2)....
...o provide the maximum coverage, because the purpose of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Act is to broaden insurance coverage. We reject this contention because we disagree with petitioner's claim that the statutory language is vague and ambiguous. Section 627.739(2) provides that the insurer will offer deductibles and "such amount [is] to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due......
921 So. 2d 23, 2006 WL 120177
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 2006 | Docket: 1658376
Cited 6 times | Published
...*26 We conclude that Diagnostics has no claim for damages and, therefore, no standing to pursue a class action. See Neighborhood Health, 913 So.2d at 706. Accordingly, we reverse the class certification order. NOTES [1] It is undisputed that the applicable deductible in this case was $2,000. Furthermore, section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1994), provides in pertinent part: (2) Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000, and $2,000, such amou...
443 So. 2d 279, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25240
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1983 | Docket: 1458537
Cited 6 times | Published
...injured. When Lumbermens refused to pay Alvarez for any damages below the deductible amount, he sued, claiming, inter alia, that the personal injury protection deductible was invalid because the insurer failed to satisfy the duty imposed upon it by Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1979), to inform Alvarez that he could not avail himself of the deductible unless he had other applicable coverage....
...stated that he has no collateral insurance coverage. The trial court entered summary judgment for Alvarez, implicitly determining that Almerico's testimony was insufficient to present an issue of fact as to whether Alvarez was given the advice which Section 627.739 requires, since Almerico was unable to state that the standard practice and procedure of the agency was followed in the particular instance when Alvarez applied for insurance....
364 So. 2d 810, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17055
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 1978 | Docket: 461797
Cited 5 times | Published
...xceeded the maximum amount of coverage. After hearing on the motion, the trial court held that, notwithstanding the deductible provision, the plaintiff was entitled to the full $5,000.00 because of the amount of her damages. We disagree and reverse. Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1975 and 1976), reads in part as follows: * * * * * * "Each insurer * * * shall, at the election of the owner, issue a policy endorsement, * * * which endorsement shall provide that there shall be deducted from pers...
391 So. 2d 805, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17974
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 1980 | Docket: 1174089
Cited 4 times | Published
...be the difference between such deductible amount and the applicable limit of the Company's liability. (Emphasis supplied). Allstate paid $1,000 on Sandra's behalf and denied further liability. We affirm. This case is controlled by the provisions of section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....
...However based on the record before us we are unable to conclude an ambiguity exists because the policy explanation of the "deductible" tracks the insurance statute clearly and precisely. If this result is contrary to public policy or understanding and expectation, the legislature should revise section 627.739(1)....
502 So. 2d 913, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 1986 | Docket: 1180646
Cited 4 times | Published
...Shaw, Jr., of Jack W. Shaw, Jr., P.A., Jacksonville, for amicus curiae-Defense Lawyers Association. ANSTEAD, Judge. At issue in this appeal is the proper method for determining no-fault medical and wage loss benefits in accord with the provisions of Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1985)....
...Pursuant to the provisions of section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), International Bankers insured Govan for 80% of his medical expenses up to a maximum amount of $10,000.00 for any single accident. However, the policy also contains a $2,000.00 "deductible" provision. That provision is authorized by section 627.739(2) which provides in part: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000, and $2,000, such amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction....
...We hold that the 80% calculation should be made before the deductible is subtracted and reverse the summary final judgment holding to the contrary. *914 The parties agree that the answer to the issue lies in the meaning of the phrase "benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction" contained in section 627.739(2)....
571 So. 2d 546, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9420, 1990 WL 202686
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 1990 | Docket: 1653333
Cited 4 times | Published
...We have been unable to find any case in Florida which discusses at what point the deductible should be applied in a situation where a person is entitled to both PIP benefits and workers' compensation benefits. We, therefore, look to the legislative purpose behind section 627.739....
...r, it would be simpler if the primary responsibility for the payment of benefits rested with the PIP carrier to the extent of that coverage. That method would eliminate the need for subsequent reimbursements. [2] We have not overlooked the fact that section 627.739 has been amended after the Kwechin decision....
467 So. 2d 1056, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1023
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 1985 | Docket: 849817
Cited 3 times | Published
...an issue. See Section 316.066(4), Florida Statutes (1981). As to the third point, we find under the present scheme of Florida no-fault insurance code that it was error to permit evidence of the medical costs which are within the PIP definitions. See Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....
236 So. 3d 1183
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 2018 | Docket: 6307535
Cited 1 times | Published
application of the deductible authorized under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2014), when personal
407 So. 2d 993
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 1981 | Docket: 467276
Cited 1 times | Published
...As subsequently amended, Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), the statute still limits credits to benefits received under the workers' compensation law or Medicaid. We do not view the omission of payments made by Medicare as mere oversight. In Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1979) (repealed effective July 1, 1982), the legislature expressly provides that as to the named insured and dependent relatives residing in the same household, the named insured could elect, in exchange for premium modifications, that benefits payable under Medicare, 42 U.S.C.A....
...ured does not apply to Benrube who is neither the named insured nor the dependent relative living in the insured's household, and, therefore, Benrube had available to her the full $10,000.00 of the policy benefits. The same logic and rule applies to Section 627.739(2) and any election to limit duplicate payments from Medicare; duplicate payments may not be prohibited with respect to others than the insured and dependent relatives residing in his household. The clear impact of Section 627.739(2) is that duplicate payments are, in fact, contemplated because the insurance company is the primary insurer....
528 So. 2d 917, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1988, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2247, 1988 WL 53026
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 1988 | Docket: 1366652
Cited 1 times | Published
...Appellant contends the trial court erred when it failed to limit its liability for personal injury protection benefits to the sum of $8,000. We disagree and affirm on the authority of Govan v. International Bankers Insurance Company, 521 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1988). Section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (1985) provides: Insurers shall offer to each applicant and to each policyholder, upon the renewal of an existing policy, deductibles, in amounts of $250, $500, $1,000 and $2,000, such amount to be deducted from the benefits otherwise due each person subject to the deduction....
...The policy contained a provision identical to that contained in the policy issued to appellee. The district court rejected appellant's argument that the policy's statement of "$5,000 coverage" was ambiguous and misleading and affirmed an award of $1,000 to the insured. This case is controlled by the provisions of section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1977)......
...ecisions in Cowan and Thibodeau to the extent of their conflict with this court's decision. The only apparent conflict between Cowan, Thibodeau and Govan is the application of the deductible to reduce coverage rather than as a threshold to recovery. Section 627.739(2) does not mention the terms or the limits of the policy and the legislature did not intend to permit a reduction of coverage when it permitted the offering of a deductible....
...3d DCA 1981), approved, 447 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 1983). Therefore we hold the term "benefits otherwise due" means the total amount of "Required Benefits" provided by section 627.736(1) et seq. payable for a given claim. The amount of such benefits may be subject to a deductible as provided by section 627.739, but the insurance company shall be liable for such expense up to $10,000....
...ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The record does not reveal the total amount of appellee's expenses. However, appellant does not challenge the trial court's award on this basis. [2] It is clear that the term "benefits otherwise due" as used in section 627.739(2) applies to both the medical benefits coverage and the disability benefits coverage provided in the personal injury protection statute. However, section 627.739(2) expressly excludes application of the deductible to the funeral, burial, or cremation benefits provided by section 627.736(1)(c).
439 So. 2d 301, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24583
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 27, 1983 | Docket: 64600196
Published
the insurer to explain PIP deductibles under Section 627.739(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which reads: “(1)
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 2017 | Docket: 6229046
Published
application of the deductible authorized under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2014), when personal
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2022 | Docket: 63162696
Published
Progressive Select, the supreme court held that “section 627.739(2)[, Florida Statutes,] requires the deductible
238 So. 3d 937
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2018 | Docket: 6333489
Published
satisfied. The issue in this case is whether section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2010), which mandates
238 So. 3d 852
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2018 | Docket: 6333497
Published
public importance: PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. § 627.739, IS AN INSURER REQUIRED TO APPLY THE DEDUCTIBLE
240 So. 3d 22
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2018 | Docket: 6333494
Published
public importance: PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. § 627.739, IS AN INSURER REQUIRED TO APPLY THE DEDUCTIBLE
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 2022 | Docket: 61574123
Published
other claims. (emphasis added). Additionally, section 627.739(2) states:
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 2022 | Docket: 60123690
Published
other claims. (emphasis added). Additionally, section 627.739(2) states: Insurers shall offer
249 So. 3d 779
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 2018 | Docket: 7481523
Published
of certiorari, concluding: Section 627.739(2)[, Florida Statutes (2014),] currently
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 2024 | Docket: 68980597
Published
in total benefits described in s. 627.736(1). § 627.739(2), Fla. Stat. As the trial court correctly noted
452 So. 2d 1060, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14315
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 1984 | Docket: 64605931
Published
whether the adjective “dependent,” as used in section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1979), has some meaning
408 So. 2d 767, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18957
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 1982 | Docket: 1449187
Published
...ion benefits under his mother's policy, with an $8,000 deductible, rather than under Meeks' policy with no deductible. We reject his argument against this "inequity." Cf. Tapscott v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 330 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1979), provides that a named insured's election of a deductible will bind not only the named insured but also any person subject to the coverage....
394 So. 2d 1037, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19583
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 1981 | Docket: 64580804
Published
court ruled there was no deductible under Section 627.-739, Florida Statutes (1977). The lower court
236 So. 3d 1182
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 2018 | Docket: 6307534
Published
BENEFITS DUE AN INSURED, DOES SECTION 627.739(2), FLORIDA STATUTES, REQUIRE
187 So. 3d 898
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 29, 2016 | Docket: 3045463
Published
bill was applied to Karani’s deductible under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2011). Therefore, Progressive
409 So. 2d 28
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 1982 | Docket: 1525415
Published
...About ten days after the policy was written, Kwechin was injured in an accident. She filed a claim with Industrial, which promptly refused to pay any of her medical expenses below $4,000, the deductible amount. Kwechin sued, asking the trial court to declare that the deductible was offered by Industrial in violation of Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977), and was thus ineffective. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and from a summary judgment entered in favor of Industrial, Kwechin appeals. Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977), provides, in pertinent part: "In order to prevent duplication with other private or governmental insurance or benefits for senior citizens and others with access to such insurance or benefits, each insurer providing the coverage and benefits described in s....
...1973) (statute which permits insured, by his own knowing election, to forego insurance, and concomitantly denies to insured a right of access to the courts for redress for his injury, is unconstitutional in failing to provide a reasonable alternative to the loss of access). Because we hold that under Section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1977), an insurer may not offer deductibles to a person it knows to be without collateral coverage, we have no occasion to address this constitutional argument....
...In effect, he told her that the deductible was available in any event, but would be particularly beneficial, as non-duplicative, if she had other coverage. [3] Assuming that the insurer sold the policy to Kwechin at a reduced premium because of the deductibles, see § 627.739, Fla....
...Stat., it would be entitled to offset from any amounts due Kwechin the difference between the higher premium which it would have charged had there been no deductibles and the premium charged. Of course, the amounts due Kwechin will be "the benefits otherwise due," § 627.739(1), Fla....
260 So. 3d 219
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 2018 | Docket: 8498557
Published
services and care. The issue presented is whether section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2014), requires the deductible
259 So. 3d 1013
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 2018 | Docket: 64699502
Published
application of the deductible authorized under section 627.739(2), Florida Statutes (2016), when personal
365 So. 2d 441, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17146
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 19, 1978 | Docket: 64567681
Published
father’s policy. The trial court ruled that Section 627.739,1 Florida Statutes (1977), precluded recovery
390 So. 2d 826, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18174
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 1980 | Docket: 64579035
Published
otherwise due each of the three injured insureds. § 627.739, Fla.Stat. (1979); see Industrial Fire and Casualty
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 2021 | Docket: 60123703
Published
3d 22, 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), or whether section 627.739, Florida Statutes (2018), requires a PIP insurer
448 So. 2d 1181, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12756
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 17, 1984 | Docket: 64604318
Published
that the insurer had breached its duty under section 627.739, Florida Statutes (1981) by issuing a personal
