While intent often sways an argument between spouses, it has no bearing on a Court’s determination that PIP coverage does not extend to a non-insured vehicle owned by only one spouse. In Star Casualty Insurance Co. v. Jacksonville Chiropractic, Inc. a/a/o Marie St. Hilaire, the 5th DCA overruled a Duval County Trial Court’s usage of intent to determine whether a vehicle removed from an insurance policy was intended to be removed from coverage. 51 Fla. L. Weekly D634a (5th DCA 2026). In Star Casualty, the wife of the insured attempted to seek PIP benefits for treatment following an accident wherein she was the passenger in a vehicle owned by her husband but not insured under the subject policy. The insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing its policy expressly excludes coverage to the insured when the insured is occupying a motor vehicle owned by the insured and which is not an insured motor vehicle under the policy. Importantly, while the policy contemplates “a motor vehicle which you own,” “you” also includes the spouse of the insured who resides in the same household. Simply put, PIP coverage can be denied when a subject vehicle, which is owned by the insured or their spouse, is not included on the declarations page and no premiums are charged for such coverage.
Questions about extending PIP Coverage? The experienced attorneys at Taylor Day Law are happy to evaluate and advise on these issues and work to get you great results.