Legal Opinion
Laninfa v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided June 30, 1995No. 94-1759PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
PETERSON, Judge.
David A. Laninfa appeals the final summary judgment in favor of his insurer, Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company. At issue is whether a person walking along the side of a road and pushing a disabled motorcycle is a “pedestrian” and therefore entitled to personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. We conclude that Lanin-fa was not a pedestrian and affirm the trial court.
The parties stipulated to the facts. Lanin-fa was a motorcycle mechanic who was test driving a customer’s motorcycle. During the test drive, the motorcycle’s engine failed and could not be…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lokos v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1949
- Manning v. Summit Home InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1980
- Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. GarciaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979
- Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. OppedisanoNew York Supreme Court · 1964
- Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. NorrisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1973
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Schmidt v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000