HomeMy WebLinkAbout2799suffering.
~' c) The third major alternative benefit given to
I
{~ accident victims under no-fault at the time of Lasky_,
~,
'' was the requirement that all drivers maintain liability
;;
insurance for bodily in~ury in order to meet the "financial
responsibility laws", [See Florida Statute §324.021(7)
'' _ (1973).] The effect of this benefit was subsequently
eroded and abrogated by the legislature by the enactment
,; of Florida Law 77-468(6)~ 1977, which completely redefined
the term "motor vehicle". Automobiles need now only
carry no-fault PIP benefits and there is no longer a
requirement that drivers maintain liability insurance
for bodily injury in order to meet the financial
responsibility laws.
;; d) The fourth alternative remedy that the victims
received was immunity from tort liability when he is
at fault.
Since the constitutionality of the No-Fault Law was
tested in Lasky, in 1974, the original statute has undergone
substantial changes. Several of these changes affect either
the tort threshold or the alternative remedies available. In
1976, the first major modification occurred when the personal
injury threshold was rewritten. Prior to 1976, the basic
non-permanent injury tort threshold was met when the victim
received the equivalent of $1,000.00 in medical treatment
for his injury. The legislature replaced that provision in
1976 with a requirement that the injury be serious enough to
materially affect the injured person's "life style". or
"normal activity", during substantially all of the ninety
(90) day period after the occurrence of the injury. [See
Florida Statute §627.737(2).] Finally, the Statute was
amended again in 1979 to eliminate the "serious, non-permanent
+ BRr)N:N
• i°~4~L
a ~ ~ "•...
~ ._ .;.•.
Page Seven
8~1m(~~~ P~~t~ l ~7
~
;^
~ ~
, ~
~
~-~~ _ : - -
- ~ ~ w ~ ~ :~.~ F~~ ~
_` ~~~;,.~ . ~ _ I ~ ~ - _
~ _: