Legal Opinion

Bolden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 12, 1997No. 95-2872PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

WARNER, Judge.

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.160(d), the County Court of Palm Beach County has certified to us as a question of great public importance the following:

*340DOES THE PIP STATUTE AND FLA. STAT. 627.736(4)(f) COMPEL THE ADDITION OF AN INSURED CLASS NOT PROVIDED BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY’S POLICY DEFINITION OF INSURED SO THAT THE MEDICAL PAYMENTS COVERAGE WILL DEFINE “INSURED” AS NOW REQUIRED FOR PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION COVERAGE IN FLA. STAT. 627.736(1) AND 627.736(4)?

We have accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 9.030(b)(4)(A) and Rule 9.160(d).

This case arises…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Holly v. AuldSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
  2. Carlile v. GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COM'NSupreme Court of Florida · 1977
  3. Moylan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977
  4. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. SwearingenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
  5. Blume v. American Motorist Insurance Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Allstate Insurance v. JonesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API