HomeMy WebLinkAbout2796~i; The Court enunciated a atandard which any legislative
abrogation of a commnon law remedy would have to meet, and
~; stated that:
~;
i~
!! "...where a right of access to the courts for
'; redress for a particular in3ury has been pro-
,' vided by statutory law predating the adoption
of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution
~ of the State of Florida, or where such right
' has become a part of the common law of the
;~~ State pursuant to F1a.Stat. §2.01, F.S.A., the
~:~ Legislature is without power to abolish such
a right without providing a reasonable alterna-
tive to prote~t the rights of the people of the
State to redress for in~uries, unless the
Legislature can show an overpowering public
necessity for the abolishment of such right,
and no alternative method of ineeting such public
necessity can be shown."
Stated succinctly, the Supreme Court held that the
statutory provision which barred recovery for automobile
property damage which totaled less than $SS0.00 was unconsti-
;, tutional because the legislature had abolished a common law
right without providing a reasonable alternative.
The personal in~ ury threshold was tested soon af ter-
ward in the case of Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company,
` 296 So2d 9, (Fla. 1974). The original t1o-Fault Law, under
review by the Supreme Court in Lasky. provided that a personal
injury tort action could only be brought when,
1) Medical benefits paid by the PIP insurer
exceeded $1,000.00; or,
. 2) The injury or disease consists in whole or in
part of a permanent disfigurement, a fracture to a weight
bearing bone, a compound, comminuted, displaced or
compressed fracture, loss of a body member, permanent
injury within reasonable medical probability~ permanent
loss of a bodily function, or death [See §627.737(2),
1971.j
The Court, in Lasky, emphasized the difference between
the property and speculative damage thresholds. Under Florida's
original No-Fault Act the legislature did not require
motorists to purchase first party insurance against property
damage (i.e. collision coverage), however, the owner of a
motor vehicle was required by staCute to maintain security,
~- BP.OVV`i
.. . .. . y:q,
. ~ . , ,, ~ Page Four
$~x 34~ ~~~~ 2~95
~;~_e, _ . : - :~~~
~~~~~~~