Amendments to 324.031

1. Lipof v. Florida Power Light Co.

   558 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 9 times

   Appellee moved for summary judgment on the basis that it owed no duty to appellant pursuant to section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), because it was appellant's employer and not an insurer or insurance company as recognized by sections 627.733 and 324.031, Florida Statutes (1983), and because of its status as a self-insurer. The trial court entered summary judgment for appellee and this appeal followed. We affirm.

   PAGE 1068
2. Young v. Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co.

   753 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2000)   Cited 83 times

   Therefore, the policy reasoning of Mullis is met by self-insurance meeting the requirements section 324.031(4), which complies with the statute just as much as a commercial policy meeting the requirements of section 324.031(1).

   PAGE 89
3. Mears Transp. Group v. State

   34 F.3d 1013 (11th Cir. 1994)   Cited 17 times

   • Motion for summary judgment

   Plaintiffs-appellees, for-profit passenger transportation companies and the risk retention group from which they purchase insurance, challenge the validity of Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031, which requires owners and operators of for-hire transportation vehicles to prove financial responsibility by maintaining certain specified insurance coverage. Specifically, plaintiffs-appellees contend that Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 violates and is preempted by the federal Liability Risk Retention Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3901-3906. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court agreed with plaintiffs-appellees and permanently enjoined enforcement of Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031. Because we find that Fla.Stat. ch. 324.031 is precisely the type of state law that Congress expressly excepted from the preemption provisions of the Liability Risk Retention Act, we reverse.
4. Lipof v. Florida Power and Light Co.

   596 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1992)   Cited 10 times

   The Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed the issue of Florida Power's duty as a self-insurer. Under section 324.031(4), Florida Statutes (1983), a person may prove financial responsibility by furnishing a certificate of self-insurance issued by the department. The record before us does not reflect that Florida Power complied with section 324.031 in this manner. Thus, we do not reach the issue of whether the law requires a self-insured employer who offers an employee compliance with section 324.031 to also offer the employee uninsured motorist coverage.

   PAGE 1008
5. Diversified Services, Inc. v. Avila

   606 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1992)   Cited 13 times

   • Motion for summary judgment

   Section 324.031, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in relevant part:

   PAGE 365
6. Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Company

   60 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 2011)   Cited 22 times

   (1)(b) A person who is either the owner or a lessee required to maintain insurance under s. 324.021(9)(b ) and who operates limousines, jitneys, or any other for-hire passenger vehicles, other than taxicabs, may prove financial responsibility by furnishing satisfactory evidence of holding a motor vehicle liability policy as defined in s. 324.031.

   PAGE 1044
7. Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Co.

   993 So. 2d 614 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 25 times

   • Motion for summary judgment

   The 1955 Law's definition of "financial responsibility" is contained in the definition of the term "proof of financial responsibility"; it is the "ability to respond in damages for liability, on account of accidents arising out of the use of a motor vehicle," in the amounts of $5,000, $10,000, or $20,000, depending on the circumstances. § 324.021(7), Fla. Stat. (1955). The 1955 law provided four ways to prove financial responsibility: an insurance policy, a bond, a cash deposit with the state treasurer, or a certificate of self insurance. § 324.031, Fla. Stat. (1955); see § 324.031(1)-(4), Fla. Stat. (2007).

   PAGE 620
8. Gabriel v. Travelers Indem. Co.

   515 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 5 times

   Furthermore, we find that the City's failure to obtain a certificate is relevant only as a matter of proof of financial responsibility. The certificate is not the sole means of demonstrating self-insurance because section 324.031 does not supersede other statutorily authorized methods of proving financial responsibility. Section 324.031 should be considered in conjunction with section 768.28(13) in keeping with the accepted principle that courts should construe statutes governing the same general field as in harmony. Mann v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., 300 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1974); Markham v. Blount, 175 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1965); Graham v. Edwards, 472 So.2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 482 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1986); City of Coral Gables v. Board of Pub. Instruction of Dade County, 313 So.2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 14 (Fla. 1976). The record affords ample proof that the City is self-insured pursuant to section 768.28(13), and consequently, Gabriel is not entitled to obtain uninsured motorist benefits. We note our express conflict with Johns insofar as it holds that a certificate of self-insurance is the sole proof of municipal financial…

   PAGE 1324
9. Zeichner v. City of Lauderhill

   732 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 3 times

   • Motion for summary judgment

   [t]he certificate is not the sole means of demonstrating self-insurance because section 324.031 does not supersede other statutorily authorized methods of proving financial responsibility. Section 324.031 should be considered in conjunction with section 768.28(13) [now 768.28(15)] in keeping with the accepted principle that courts should construe statutes governing the same general field as in harmony.

   PAGE 1112
10. Sanchez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    3:21-cv-372-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2023)

    • Motion for summary judgment
    • Motion to dismiss
    2 more...

    The options for proving financial responsibility, as prescribed in § 324.031(1), include:

    PAGE 13