Daytona Beach Personal Injury Lawyers
Free Consultations 386.258.1622

Florida Third DCA concludes that person named as “co-insured” in PIP policy was entitled to PIP benefits notwithstanding the fact that she was not related to the principal insured and the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured under the policy

On December 22, 2021, in Pro-Medics Therapy & Rehab Center LLC v. United Automobile Insurance Company, No. 3D21-713, the Florida Third DCA reversed a trial court summary judgment in favor of the insurance carrier in a PIP insurance case brought by a health care provider which had been assigned the rights to pursue the PIP benefits, finding that the trial court erred in concluding that the injured party was not a covered party under the insurance policy. Although the injured party and the principal insured party were not married, the injured party was listed as a “co-insured” in the policy’s declarations page and was named as the principal’s “spouse” in a separate endorsements page. The trial court had granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion on the basis that the injured party was not a resident relative of the insured and the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured under the policy. The Third DCA concluded that the term “co-insured” generally refers to a person who is “together with” the principal insured who is covered by an insurance policy, citing Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Inst. of London Underwriters, 267 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2001) (“A coinsured party under an insurance policy has all the rights afforded to the named assured and can recover under the policy under its own right.”).

Categories: