Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Owner of vehicle for which security was required by law — Insurer of vehicle in which passenger was injured is liable for PIP benefits — Exception to PIP coverage for owner of vehicle with respect to which security is required is not applicable where passenger purchased required insurance for vehicle owned by her, but passenger was neither listed as a named insured on that policy nor a resident relative of the named insured

AVALON CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2021-018563-CC-26. Section SD06. March 20, 2025. Christopher Green, Judge. Counsel: Majid Vossoughi and Brad Blackwelder, Miami, for Plaintiff. Jessica Zlotnick Martin, Deerfield Beach, for Progressive American Insurance, Defendant. Sandra Rodriguez-Hickman, Law Offices of Acosta Farmer & Marsh, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Security National Insurance Company, Defendant.

OMNIBUS ORDER ONCOMPETING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on February 14, 2025 on (i) Defendant, Progressive American Insurance Company’s, Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment Regarding Coverage (“Progressive’s Motion for Summary Judgment”) (docket # 326), (ii) Defendant, Security National Insurance Company’s, Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment and Response to Progressive American Insurance Company’s and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Security National’s Motion for Summary Judgment”) (docket # 337), and (iii) Plaintiff, Avalon Chiropractic, P.A.’s, Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint Re: PIP Coverage (“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment”) (docket # 344).

The parties were represented by counsel at the hearing who presented arguments to the Court. Jessica Zlotnick Martin, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant, Progressive American Insurance Company (“Progressive”), Sandra Hickman, Esq. and Monica Lally, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant, Security National Insurance Company (“Security National”), and Majid Vossoughi, Esq. and Brad Blackwelder, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff.

The Court having reviewed the matter, the relevant legal authorities, the entire Court file, and having heard argument from counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby makes the following factual findings and conclusions of law, and enters this Order finding that Defendant Progressive is liable for PIP benefits to Plaintiff, for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND & FACTUAL FINDINGS

On January 13, 2021, Maritanne Jeannot was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger in a 2013 Mercedes Benz C250.

As a result of her injuries, Maritanne Jeannot received reasonable, related, and medically necessary treatment at the Plaintiff’s medical facility.¹

The 2013 Mercedes Benz C250 that Maritanne Jeannot was occupying at the time of the accident was insured through a policy of insurance issued by Progressive, including statutory mandated Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) benefits.

At the time of the accident, Maritanne Jeannot owned a 2012 Nissan Pathfinder which carried insurance through a policy issued by Security National. Although Ms. Jeannot was a rated driver under this policy of insurance, she was neither a named insured under said policy nor a resident relative of Security’s National’s named insured.

Plaintiff, as assignee of Ms. Jeannot, submitted its bills for payment of PIP benefits to both Progressive and Security National. However, both Progressive and Security National denied PIP coverage under their respective insurance policies and essentially “pointed the finger” at the other insurer as being liable for PIP benefits.

Due to the carriers’ conflicting coverage denials, on May 16, 2022 Plaintiff filed the instant action seeking declaratory relief as well as damages for breach of contract against both Progressive and Security National. (docket # 2).²

Consistent with their pre-suit denials, Progressive and Security National both raised coverage defenses alleging that that they were not required to extend PIP coverage to Ms. Jeannot for the subject loss (docket # 46 & 60).

Progressive’s coverage defense claims Plaintiff ought to recover PIP benefits from Security National since “Maritanne Jeannot owned a 2012 Nissan Pathfinder . . . on the purported date of loss that was insured by Security National” and that “Plaintiff is not entitled to PIP coverage or recovery in this action from Progressive.”

Security National’s coverage defense claims it is not responsible for payment of PIP benefits since “[Maritanne Jeannot] is excluded from coverage under said policy because [she] failed to meet the definition of an insured under the subject policy.”

On May 24, 2024 Progressive filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (docket # 326). Progressive’s motion argues that since Maritanne Jeannot owned a 2012 Nissan Pathfinder that was insured by Security National she should be entitled to receive PIP benefits from Security National. Progressive’s motion argues that an exclusion to coverage under its policy applies since Ms. Jeannot was an “owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required under ss. 627.730-627.7405”, citing to Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(e)4.a.3

On September 9, 2024 Security National filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (docket # 337). Security National’s motion argues that since Maritanne Jeannot was (i) not a named insured on its insurance policy, (ii) not a resident relative of their named insured, and (iii) not occupying the 2012 Nissan Pathfinder at the time of the subject loss, she was not entitled to PIP benefits under its policy. Security National’s motion further argues that since Ms. Jeannot was occupying the 2013 Mercedes Benz C250 insured by Progressive, she was entitled to PIP benefits from Progressive. Security National’s motion also argues that the exclusion relied upon by Progressive to deny coverage is inapplicable pursuant to binding precedent in Pearson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 560 So.2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

On December 13, 2024 Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (docket # 344). Plaintiff’s motion primarily⁴ argues that Progressive is liable for PIP benefits under its policy of insurance, as well as Fla. Stat. 627.736(1), since Maritanne Jeannot was an occupant of the 2013 Mercedes Benz C250 insured by Progressive. Plaintiff’s motion argues that, under Pearson, the exclusion relied upon by Progressive is inapplicable since same would only apply if Ms. Jeannot had failed to ensure that her 2012 Nissan Pathfinder carried PIP insurance. Plaintiff’s motion argues that since it is undisputed that Ms. Jeannot’s 2012 Nissan Pathfinder did in fact carry the required PIP insurance, the exclusion does not apply and Progressive cannot avail itself of same. Plaintiff’s motion further argues that, under Pearson, nothing in law required Maritanne Jeannot to be listed as a named insured under Security National’s policy on her 2012 Nissan Pathfinder.

At the hearing, the parties represented that the coverage issue framed by the parties’ respective filings is the only remaining issue in this case and that the Court’s ruling would be dispositive of this matter.⁵ Accordingly, this Court must now determine which Defendant, Progressive or Security National, is obligated by its contract and applicable Florida law to extend PIP coverage for the subject loss.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Absent a valid exclusion, there is plainly coverage under Progressive’s insurance policy since Maritanne Jeannot was a passenger in the 2013 Mercedes Benz C250 insured by Progressive at the time of the loss. Fla. Stat. 627.736(1) (“REQUIRED BENEFITS. — An insurance policy complying with the security requirements of s. 627.733 must provide personal injury protection to the named insured, relatives residing in the same household, persons operating the insured motor vehicle, passengers in such motor vehicle. . . ”).⁶

As such, the issue before this Court is whether the exclusion to coverage within Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(e)4.a. and Progressive’s policy of insurance is applicable to the facts of this case. Stated otherwise, the issue before this Court is whether Maritanne Jeannot, as the owner of a 2012 Nissan Pathfinder that was in fact insured with Security National, was also required to be a named insured under said policy.

The exclusion to coverage relied upon by Progressive and the identical issue before this Court was addressed in Pearson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 560 So.2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).⁷

Pearson held that the exclusion to coverage relied upon by Progressive only applies if the owner of a motor vehicle has failed to ensure that said motor vehicle carries insurance:

We believe that the exception to coverage provided in section 627.736(4)(d)(4)(a), only applies if the owner required to have insurance has failed to arrange for its purchase. It does not apply when the required insurance has been purchased and simply does not insure the owner.

Pearson interpreted the security requirement found in Fla. Stat. 627.733(1)⁸ to require the owner of a motor vehicle to ensure that said motor vehiclecarries insurance and not a requirement that the owner also be a named insured under the policy:

We interpret the requirement of section 627.733(1) that each owner must “maintain security” to mean that each owner must be sure the car is insured. It does not require each owner to buy a separate policy.

Applying this binding precedent to the undisputed facts before it, the Court finds that Progressive cannot avail itself of the exclusion here.

It is undisputed that the 2012 Nissan Pathfinder owned by Maritanne Jeannot did in fact carry PIP insurance through Security National’s policy in full compliance with the requirements of Florida law. However, Ms. Jeannot was not a named insured on Security National’s policy and, as recognized in Pearson, she was in no way required to be listed as a named insured.⁹

Since Ms. Jeannot was not listed as a named insured under Security National’s policy, was not a resident relative of Security National’s named insured, and was not occupying the 2012 Nissan Pathfinder at the time of the loss, Ms. Jeannot was not entitled to PIP benefits under Security National’s policy for the January 13, 2021 motor vehicle accident. That is, although “the required insurance ha[d] been purchased [same] simply does not insure [Ms. Jeannot]” and, accordingly, binding precedent provides that the exclusion to coverage relied upon by Progressive does not apply. Id.

Indeed, Progressive’s argument that it can escape liability since Maritanne Jeannot owned a vehicle that was insured through a policy that did not provide PIP coverage for her accident, is the exact same argument that was expressly rejected by the District Court in Pearson, which this Court is bound to follow.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Progressive is liable for PIP benefits and that Plaintiff is entitled to entry of final summary judgment in its favor and against Progressive as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, based on this Court’s analysis set forth above, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint Re: PIP Coverage is hereby GRANTED, Security National’s Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED, and Progressive’s Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment Regarding Coverage is hereby DENIED. Final judgment is entered for Defendant Security National and against Plaintiff Avalon Chiropractic, P.A. Based on the representation of the remaining parties, Plaintiff and Defendant Progressive shall submit an agreed final judgment, and the Court shall reserve jurisdiction to consider motions to tax costs and attorney’s fees.

__________________

¹All parties have stipulated that Plaintiff’s treatment rendered to Maritanne Jeannot was reasonable, related, and medically necessary (“RRN”). See, Order(s) Adopting Stipulation of the Parties (docket # 288 & 289). As such, Plaintiff has met its burden of proof in this action. Derius v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D1383a].

²The Court notes that the instant matter — a coverage dispute between a medical provider and two (2) different PIP insurers — is a textbook example of when declaratory relief under Fla. Stat. 86.011 is eminently appropriate.

³An essentially identical exclusion is also found in the text of Progressive’s insurance policy. However, the Court notes that any policy exclusion that does not comport with the exclusion(s) found in the PIP statute would be a legally unenforceable nullity. See e.g., Reeves v. Miller, 418 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (“Insurance provided to comply with a statutory requirement must comply with the statute. A policy purporting to provide the required statutory coverage but containing exclusions not contemplated by the statute does not provide the required coverage. Since the unauthorized exclusions are contrary to public policy as established by the statute, they are deemed inapplicable and disregarded and the policy is enforced as if it were in express compliance with the statutory requirements.”); Custer Med. Center v. United Auto., 62 So.3d 1086, 1089, n. 1 (Fla. 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly S640a] (“[t]he prohibition of policy exclusions, limitations, and non-statutory conditions on coverage controlled by statute is clear”); Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 740, 745 (Fla. 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly S499a] (courts have an obligation to invalidate exclusions on coverage that are inconsistent with the purpose of the statute); Salas v. Liberty Mut. Fire. Ins. Co., 272 So.2d 1, 5 (Fla. 1972) (insurance coverage that is a creature of statute is not susceptible to insurer’s attempts to limit or negate the protection afforded by law); Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229, 232-34 (Fla. 1971) (automobile insurance obtained to comply with or conform to the law cannot be narrowed by the insurer through exclusions and exceptions contrary to the law).

⁴Plaintiff’s motion also argues as alternative relief that, should the Court not find Progressive liable, then Security National must instead be found liable and/or that both carriers be found liable on a pro rata basis. While the Court finds these alternative arguments to be perhaps academically interesting, since the Court finds that it is bound by the holding of Pearson it need not reach same.

⁵Progressive’s additional defenses pertaining to pre-suit demand letter and failure to state a cause of action were abandoned by Progressive.

⁶Consistent with the statutory command, Progressive’s policy itself defines an “insured person”, in relevant part, to be “any other person sustaining bodily injury while occupying a covered auto”.

⁷The Pearson decision is binding under Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992) (“in the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts”). At the time Pearson was decided the exclusion was found at Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(d)(4)(a) but same was subsequently renumbered to Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(e)4.a.; however, the text of the exclusion remains unchanged.

⁸Fla. Stat. 627.733(1) provides in pertinent part that “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”.

⁹“The Florida motor vehicle no-fault law does not require all owners to be listed as named insureds on policies which insure a specific motor vehicle. Indeed, the definition of ‘named insured’ expressly recognizes that an owner may not always be a named insured.” Id. at 418; see also, Fla. Stat. 627.732(4) (“ ‘Named insured’ means a person, usually the owner of a vehicle, identified in a policy by name as the insured under the policy”).