Home
Menu
904-383-7448
F.S. 627.733 on Google Scholar

F.S. 627.733 on Casetext

Amendments to 627.733


The 2022 Florida Statutes

Title XXXVII
INSURANCE
Chapter 627
INSURANCE RATES AND CONTRACTS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 627.733 Florida Statutes and Case Law
627.733 Required security.
(1)(a) Every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle, other than a motor vehicle used as a school bus as defined in s. 1006.25 or limousine, required to be registered and licensed in this state shall maintain security as required by subsection (3) in effect continuously throughout the registration or licensing period.
(b) Every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle used as a taxicab shall not be governed by paragraph (1)(a) but shall maintain security as required under s. 324.032(1), and s. 627.737 shall not apply to any motor vehicle used as a taxicab.
(2) Every nonresident owner or registrant of a motor vehicle which, whether operated or not, has been physically present within this state for more than 90 days during the preceding 365 days shall thereafter maintain security as defined by subsection (3) in effect continuously throughout the period such motor vehicle remains within this state.
(3) Such security shall be provided:
(a) By an insurance policy delivered or issued for delivery in this state by an authorized or eligible motor vehicle liability insurer which provides the benefits and exemptions contained in ss. 627.730-627.7405. Any policy of insurance represented or sold as providing the security required hereunder shall be deemed to provide insurance for the payment of the required benefits; or
(b) By any other method authorized by s. 324.031(2) or (3) and approved by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles as affording security equivalent to that afforded by a policy of insurance or by self-insuring as authorized by s. 768.28(16). The person filing such security shall have all of the obligations and rights of an insurer under ss. 627.730-627.7405.
(4) An owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required by this section who fails to have such security in effect at the time of an accident shall have no immunity from tort liability, but shall be personally liable for the payment of benefits under s. 627.736. With respect to such benefits, such an owner shall have all of the rights and obligations of an insurer under ss. 627.730-627.7405.
(5) In addition to other persons who are not required to provide required security as required under this section and s. 324.022, the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle is exempt from such requirements if she or he is a member of the United States Armed Forces and is called to or on active duty outside the United States in an emergency situation. The exemption provided by this subsection applies only as long as the member of the armed forces is on such active duty outside the United States and applies only while the vehicle covered by the security required by this section and s. 324.022 is not operated by any person. Upon receipt of a written request by the insured to whom the exemption provided in this subsection applies, the insurer shall cancel the coverages and return any unearned premium or suspend the security required by this section and s. 324.022. Notwithstanding s. 324.0221(2), the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles may not suspend the registration or operator’s license of any owner or registrant of a motor vehicle during the time she or he qualifies for an exemption under this subsection. Any owner or registrant of a motor vehicle who qualifies for an exemption under this subsection shall immediately notify the department prior to and at the end of the expiration of the exemption.
History.ss. 4, 6, ch. 71-252; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 8, ch. 77-118; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 31, 32, ch. 77-468; s. 11, ch. 78-374; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 552, 563, ch. 82-243; s. 69, ch. 82-386; ss. 4, 6, ch. 86-182; s. 18, ch. 88-370; s. 57, ch. 89-282; s. 5, ch. 91-106; s. 4, ch. 91-110; s. 1, ch. 91-128; s. 77, ch. 93-120; s. 7, ch. 95-202; s. 30, ch. 95-211; s. 2, ch. 97-84; s. 362, ch. 97-102; s. 14, ch. 98-223; s. 34, ch. 99-3; ss. 63, 317, ch. 99-248; s. 1031, ch. 2002-387; s. 19, ch. 2003-2; s. 19, ch. 2003-411; s. 123, ch. 2004-5; s. 47, ch. 2006-290; s. 4, ch. 2007-150; s. 11, ch. 2007-324; s. 90, ch. 2013-160.
Note.Consolidation of s. 627.733 and former s. 627.735.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: August 29, 2022
F.S. 627.733 on Google Scholar

F.S. 627.733 on Casetext

Amendments to 627.733


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 627.733
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 627.733.


Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S627.733
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 627.733.


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. Moreover, the stated purpose of the No-Fault Act is to "provide medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance securing such benefits. . . ." § 627.731, Fla. Stat. (2001). This purpose is accomplished through the provisions of section 627.733, which require that every owner of a motor vehicle "maintain security as required by subsection (3). . . ." § 627.733(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). Subsection (3) provides that "[s]uch security shall be provided: (a) [b]y an insurance policy . . . which provides the benefits and exemptions contained in ss. 627.730-627.7405." § 627.733(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). Section 627.736 contains the provisions that specify what the security requirements are: medical, disability and death benefits. As the court explained in Reid v. State Farm Fire Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 1977):
    PAGE 1084
  2. Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company

    296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)   Cited 134 times
    In order to determine whether the act in question is reasonably related to these permissible legislative objectives, we are compelled next to examine what changes the act makes in the prior tort law. F.S. § 627.737, F.S.A., grants an exemption from liability in tort for vehicular accidents, to persons meeting the insurance requirements of F.S. § 627.733, F.S.A., to the extent that benefits are payable under the provisions of § 627.736(1) and also to the extent that an injured party may not recover for pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience unless certain threshold criteria have been met. The act also requires persons within its ambit to provide and maintain security for the provision of the benefits required under § 627.736(1); failure to maintain such security results in revocation of the registrant's driving license and vehicle registration. F.S. § 627.735(1), F.S.A. Tort actions against persons not required to provide security are unaffected. F.S. § 627.740, F.S.A. Persons required to provide security and failing to do so have no tort immunity and are personally liable, under F.S. § 627.733( 4), F.S.A., for the payment of benefits provided for in…
    PAGE 16
  3. Nichols v. State Farm Mutual

    851 So. 2d 742 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 28 times
    Moreover, the stated purpose of the No-Fault Act is to "provide medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance securing such benefits . . . ." § 627.731, Fla. Stat. (2001). This purpose is accomplished through the provisions of section 627.733, which require that every owner of a motor vehicle "maintain security as required by subsection (3) . . . ." § 627.733(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). Subsection (3) provides that "[s]uch security shall be provided: (a) [b]y an insurance policy . . . which provides the benefits and exemptions contained in ss. 627.730- 627.7405." § 627.733(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). Section 627.736 contains the provisions that specify what the security requirements are: medical, disability and death benefits. As the court explained in Reid v. State Farm Fire Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 1977):
    PAGE 750
  4. Epperson v. Dixie Ins. Co.

    461 So. 2d 172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 7 times
    Dixie contends, alternatively, that Epperson was required by section 320.38(1), to register and license his pickup truck in Florida within ten days after he had begun work here and that Epperson was, therefore, required by section 627.733(1) to obtain no-fault insurance, including PIP coverage, regardless of the application of section 627.733(2). Since Epperson failed to have the required insurance, Dixie argues, he is precluded from recovering PIP benefits from Dixie.
    PAGE 175
  5. Reid v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co.

    352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1978)   Cited 87 times
    Appellant contends that Florida law does prohibit the use of the family-household exclusion in automobile liability insurance policies. The basis of her argument is the Florida Automobile Reparations Act, which became effective January 1, 1972. Specifically, she relies upon the language of Section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1975).
    PAGE 1173
  6. Holt v. King

    707 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 2 times
    Florida Statutes section 627.733, entitled Required Security, requires all motor vehicle owners to maintain "no-fault" automobile insurance covering, among other items, 80% of the insured's own medical expenses. See §§ 627.733(1), (3)(a), 627.736(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995).
    PAGE 1143
  7. Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    Case No. 2D17-4595 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May. 24, 2019)   Cited 1 times
    The School Board also argues on appeal that it should be exempt from reimbursement under section 627.7405(1) because the legislature expressly exempted motor vehicles used as school buses from the statutory requirement to maintain no-fault insurance coverage. See § 627.733( 1)(a) (requiring "[e]very owner or registrant of a motor vehicle, other than a motor vehicle used as a school bus . . . or limousine" to maintain insurance that provides the benefits and exemptions of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law). We disagree. The express exemption of school buses from the requirement to maintain no-fault insurance does not conflict with the express inclusion of school buses in the definition of a "commercial motor vehicle," the owner of which is subject to the reimbursement provision of section 627.7405(1). The plain language of section 627.7405(1) expressly provides that the right of reimbursement against the owner of a commercial motor vehicle exists "[n]otwithstanding ss. 627.730-627.7405," and we need look no further than the plain language of the statute. See Patrick v. Hess, 212 So. 3d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 2017) (" 'When the statute is clear and unambiguous,' we look no…
    PAGE 8
  8. Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co, Inc.

    35 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2010)   Cited 75 times   1 Legal Analyses
    benefits." § 627.731, Fla. Stat. (2006); accord United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 808 So.2d 82, 85 (Fla. 2001) (stating that the intent of the No-Fault Law is "to provide a minimum level of insurance benefits without regard to fault"). The No-Fault Law mandates security that can be established by alternative means, one; of which is PIP insurance. See § 627.733, Fla. Stat. (2006).
    PAGE 877
  9. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lee

    678 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1996)   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    The cause of action in this case is a first party claim in contract for failure to pay the contractual obligation for personal injuries sustained, regardless of fault. The coverage is mandated by section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1981), in all policies complying with the security requirements of section 627.733, Florida Statutes. With regard to the payment of PIP benefits, section 627.736(4)(b) provides:
    PAGE 820
  10. Mansfield v. Rivero

    620 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1993)   Cited 17 times
    (1) Every owner, registrant, operator, or occupant of a motor vehicle with respect to which security has been provided as required by ss. 627.730- 627.7405, and every person or organization legally responsible for his acts or omissions, is hereby exempted from tort liability for damages because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of such motor vehicle in this state to the extent that the benefits described in s. 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be payable but for any exclusion authorized by ss. 627.730- 627.7405, under any insurance policy or other method of security complying with the requirements of s. 627.733, or by an owner personally liable under s. 627.733 for the payment of such benefits, unless a person is entitled to maintain an action for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience for such injury under the provisions of subsection (2).
    PAGE 988