Man beaten while changing tire entitled to personal injury protection benefits under auto insurance policy

Law Reporter, Sep 1999

Blish v. Atlanta Cas. Co., _ So. 2d _, No. 92,984,1999

WL 284875 (Fla. May 6,1999).

The Supreme Court of Florida held that a man who was beaten while changing a tire on his truck is entitled to benefits under the portion of his auto insurance policy providing personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.

Here, Blish was robbed and beaten while changing a tire. He filed a claim for benefits under the PIP portion of his auto insurance policy. His auto insurer, Atlanta Casualty Company, denied the claim.

Blish sued Atlanta Casualty. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment.

The circuit court reversed, ruling that plaintiff had established a sufficient nexus between his use of the truck and his injuries.

The district court reversed, reasoning that recovery must be denied because the assailants made no attempt to either possess or use the vehicle.

Quashing the district court's decision, the state high court noted that FLA. STAT. Sec 627.736 requires that motor vehicle insurance policies issued in Florida provide PIP benefits for bodily injury "arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle." The language of the statute must be liberally construed to effect the legislative purpose of providing broad PIP coverage for Florida motorists, the court said.

Further, in construing this language, courts should ask whether the type of injury sustained by the insured is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the use, ownership, or maintenance of the vehicle. The court said that a key issue in deciding coverage is whether the type of injury sustained by the insured was reasonably in the minds of the contracting parties.

Here, the court found, plaintiff's injuries were a foreseeable consequence of the use and maintenance of the truck.

The court noted that acts of violence are a foreseeable hazard associated with the use of a vehicle, and losses resulting from a violent encounter with an opportunistic thug might reasonably be said to be contemplated by Florida consumers when they are purchasing auto insurance. Thus, the court concluded, plaintiff's injuries arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle and are, therefore, covered under the PIP portion of his auto insurance policy.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

Michael L. Reda, Titusville, Fla.