September 6, 2009

Rental Car Companies: Off the Hook for Vicarious Liability Under the Federal Graves Amendment

Most drivers who have the misfortune of being injured through the negligence of the driver of a rental car company may not be aware of relatively recent changes to the law which make it virtually impossible to “win” a claim of vicarious liability against a rental car company where the at-fault driver was driving a rental car at the time of the accident. The latest Florida case on the vicarious liability of rental car companies reiterates this point. Blanks v. Enterprise Leasing Co., et al. (Fla. 3d DCA, Sept. 2, 2009).

The Blanks Court held in favor of the defendant rental car company by simply citing two previous opinions on the same issue, Kumarsingh et al., v. PV Holding Corp. and Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 983 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); and Vargas v. Enter. Leasing Co., 993 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The purpose of this blog is to provide background on “Graves Amendment” jurisprudence which clearly establishes that car rental companies are off the hook for vicarious liability claims.

In Kumarsingh, the plaintiffs had been seriously injured in an automobile accident caused by the driver of a rental car. The rental car driver had a valid Mexican driver but was uninsured. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the rental car company “alleging vicarious liability as the owners/lessors of the car and negligent entrustment.” See Kumarsingh at 599.

The defendants argued that a federal law, 49 U.S.C. s. 30106, commonly known as the Graves Amendment, pre-empted or “trumped” Florida’s statute imposing vicarious liability of auto lessors up to the limits set forth in section 324.021(9)(b)(2)., Florida Statutes). Section 324.021(9)(b)(2)., Florida Statutes is part of Chapter 324, Florida Statutes entitled “Financial Responsibility.” The purpose of the Chapter 324 is to:

Recognize the existing privilege to own or operate a motor vehicle in the public streets and highways of this state when such vehicles are used with due consideration for others and their property, and to promote safety and provide financial security requirements and provide financial security requirements for such owners or operators whose responsibility it is to recompense others for injury to person or property caused by the operation of a vehicle. Garcia, et al., v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 2d 821, 828 (Fla. M.D. 2007) citing Fla. Stat. s. 324.011 (The Kumarsingh opinion cited Garcia.)

As the Garcia Court pointed out, in return for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle in Florida, Chapter 324 requires the operators of motor vehicles in Florida to establish their financial responsibility by “proof of ability to respond in damages for liability on account of crashes arising out of the use of a motor vehicle in the amount of $10,000.00 per person, $20,000.00 per accident for bodily injury and $10,000.00 for property damage per accident.” Fla. Stat. s. 324.021(7).

Section 324.021(9)(b)(2) of Florida’s Financial Responsibility Chapter pertains specifically to the liability of owners/lessors of cars where the motor vehicle lease was for a short term lease (less than 1 year). Under the statute, short term lessors were vicariously liable up to “$100,000 per person and up to $300,000 total for bodily injury and up to $50,000. The short term lessor could also be held liability for up to an additional $500,000 in economic damages if the lessee or the operator of the vehicle was uninsured or had insurance with limits less than $500,000.
See also Garcia at 829.

The Graves Amendment, which became effective on August 10, 2005, has effectively abrogated Florida’s Financial Liability laws as they applied to car rental companies under Section 324.021(9)(b) by providing that “a lessor of a motor vehicle shall not be liable under the law of any state by any reason of being the owner, for harm that arises out of the use of the vehicle during the lease period if the owner is engaged in the trade of renting vehicles and there is no owner negligence or criminal wrong-doing on the owner’s part.”

Continue reading "Rental Car Companies: Off the Hook for Vicarious Liability Under the Federal Graves Amendment " »

August 21, 2009

Chalk One Up for the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Insurance Policy Owner in Florida

In Diaz-Hernandez v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (Fla. Law Weekly D1046; May 27, 2009), the Third District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida recently held that a provision in State Farm’s policy for uninsured motorist’s coverage was against the public policy of the Florida Uninsured Motorists (UM) Statute, section 627.727. The policy provision at issue required that State Farm’s insured file any lawsuit against both the uninsured motorist and State Farm.

In Diaz-Hernandez, the Insured filed a lawsuit against State Farm, seeking to recover UM benefits for injuries sustained in an automobile collision with an uninsured motorist. The complaint did not name the uninsured motorist as the second defendant. State Farm attempted to “get out” of the law suit by arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Diaz failed to name both State Farm and the uninsured motorist as joint defendants. The trial court granted State Farm’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and Diaz-Hernandez appealed, arguing that the provision in the UM policy, which required him to join the uninsured motorist in his claim against State Farm, is against the public policy of Florida’s Uninsured Motorists (UM) statute.

The Diaz-Hernandez Appellate Court noted that State Farm’s policy added “an additional burden upon the Insured by requiring the Insured to join the uninsured motorist in the Insured’s contractual action against State Farm for UM coverage.” In reaching its decision, the Diaz-Hernandez Court relied on the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 252 So. 2d 229, 233-34, 238 (Fla. 1971) which stated in part:

The public policy of the uninsured motorist statute . . . is to provide uniform and specific insurance benefits to members of the public to cover damages for bodily injury caused by the negligence of insolvent or uninsured motorists and such statutorily fixed and prescribed protection is not reducible by insurers’ policy exclusions and exceptions. . . .
. . . .

[The uninsured motorist statute] was enacted to provide relief to innocent persons who are injured through the negligence of an uninsured motorist; it is not to be “whittled away” by exclusions and exceptions.

The Diaz-Hernandez Court agreed with the Insured and stated that the “additional burden [Statefarm’s policy provision] places upon the Insured violates the clear policy articulated in Armstrong v. Allstate Ins. Co., 712 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), that the purpose of the UM coverage is to protect the injured motorist, not to benefit the UM carrier or the uninsured motorist.” The policy provision at issue was found to be void because it violated public policy.

Continue reading "Chalk One Up for the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Insurance Policy Owner in Florida" »