HomeMy WebLinkAbout2795!! party personal injury protection (PIP) insurance of ~
i~ $5,000.00; ;
i~ Second, the legislature provided for complementary !
;! tort im~nunity so that no Defendant in an automobile
:1 negligence suit could be sued for either economic j
~ losses covered by PIP insurance or for speculative pain ;
;~ and suffering damages, unless the victim met a personal
;; injury tort threshold. In addition, the Statute carried j
;~ the no-fault concept over into the property damage i
area. Aithough the legislature did not provide for i
' mandatory first party property damage insurance, it ;
~; exempted each automobile owner from liability for i
~ property damage up to $550.00 caused to another vehicle ;
required to be insured by the act. The effect of the
: legislation was that accident victims could no longer
`' sue for either speculative damages (pain and suffering) ~
~ or property damages unless they met the respective tort ~
' thresholds. ~
~
~
The first of the two thresholds to be tested in the ~
~ i
~ Florida Courts was the provision barring recovery for automo- '
~
bile property damage which totaled less than $550.00. In
' Klueger v. White} 281 So2d l, (Fla. 1973), involving a suit ~
~
for automobile property damage, the Plaintiff alleged that the ~
~ ~
' driver of the Defendant's car was negligent and had been
fornaally charged with failing to yield the right of way. The
accident did not result in personal injuries, but the
i
Appellant's car was totally demolished. The car had a fair
market value of $250.00 which was $300.00 less than the pre-
scribed $550.00 property damage threshold provided by Statute.
The Plaintiff, though insured, had not purchased first party
1 coverage for property damage (i.e. collision coverage), thus,
under the Statute, he fell into that class of accident victims
with no recourse against any person or insurance company for
loss caused by the fault of another. In Kluger, the Supreme
Court ruled that.the property damage threshold provision of the ~
No-Fault Act was unconstitutional, basing its decision on
Article I, Section 21~ of the Florida Constitution, which
provides, as stated above, that,
"The Courts shall be open to every person
for redress of any injury, and justice shall
be administered without sale, denial or
delay."
L- tl R il'.". •,~
. . ~ :, r.
i h .:~N,-
-. - ,.. %l=.i
g ~
a}~ ~-f3# ~-t ~~~ - _ _
~ .. .~ .
Page Three
~~~~34~ ~~~E2794
+3..~ ~~° ~~.L~.-