Star Casualty Insurance Company v. Jacksonville Chiropractic, Inc. a/a/o Marie St. Hilaire
Jurisdiction: Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal
Case No.: 5D2024-1148, 5D2024-2588
Date: March 27, 2026
Lower Court: County Court for Duval County; Judge Michelle L. Kalil
When PIP Coverage Disappears: The Risk of Unlisted Household Vehicles
In Star Casualty Insurance Company v. Jacksonville Chiropractic, Inc., Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed a common but often misunderstood issue in personal injury protection (PIP) claims: whether coverage applies when an insured is injured in a household vehicle that is not listed on the policy.
The court’s decision reinforces a strict interpretation of policy exclusions and serves as a warning to insureds, providers, and attorneys alike if a vehicle is not listed on the declarations page and no premium is paid for it, coverage may not exist, even if the injured person is otherwise insured.
Background: A Routine Claim with a Critical Detail
Marie St. Hilaire was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger in a 2007 Ford Taurus owned by her husband. At the time of the accident:
- She and her husband lived together
- The vehicle was owned solely by her husband
- The vehicle was not listed on the insurance policy’s declarations page
After the accident, she received treatment from Jacksonville Chiropractic, which then sought PIP benefits from the insurer, Star Casualty.
Star Casualty denied the claim based on a policy exclusion, triggering litigation.
The Policy Language That Controlled Everything
The insurance policy contained a clear exclusion:
- Coverage does not apply to “you” while occupying a vehicle owned by you that is not an insured vehicle under the policy
The policy also defined “you” broadly to include:
- The named insured
- The spouse, if residing in the same household
Additionally, an “insured motor vehicle” was defined as:
- A vehicle listed on the declarations page
- A vehicle for which a premium was charged
This language became the foundation of the appellate court’s decision.
The Trial Court’s Error
The trial court ruled in favor of Jacksonville Chiropractic, finding:
- Marie St. Hilaire was not the legal owner of the vehicle
- Therefore, the exclusion did not apply
- The insurer also failed to prove the vehicle was intentionally removed from the policy
Based on that reasoning, the court entered judgment in favor of the provider.
The Appellate Court’s Reversal
The Fifth District reversed completely.
The appellate court found that the trial court misinterpreted both the policy and Florida law.
Why the Exclusion Applied
1. “You” Includes a Resident Spouse
The most important issue was the definition of “you.”
Even though Marie St. Hilaire did not legally own the vehicle, she:
- Lived with her husband
- Was considered part of the insured household
Under the policy definition, she fell within the term “you.”
Because the vehicle was owned by her husband and she resided with him, the exclusion applied to her just as it would to him.
2. Ownership Is Broader Than Title Alone
The trial court focused on legal title ownership. The appellate court rejected that narrow view.
Florida law and policy language operate together to prevent:
- Multiple household vehicles being covered
- Without corresponding premiums being paid
Allowing coverage in this situation would effectively:
- Extend insurance benefits to an unlisted vehicle
- Without any premium collected
The court made clear this is exactly what the exclusion is designed to prevent.
3. The Declarations Page Controls Coverage
The court emphasized a fundamental principle of insurance law:
- If a vehicle is not listed on the declarations page
- And no premium is paid for it
- It is not covered
At the time of the accident:
- The Ford Taurus had been removed from the policy
- It was not listed
- No premium was charged
That alone was enough to trigger the exclusion.
4. Intent Does Not Matter
One of the more interesting arguments raised was that the insurer needed to prove the vehicle was intentionally removed from the policy.
The appellate court firmly rejected this.
There is:
- No requirement in the policy
- No requirement in Florida Statute 627.736
that an insurer prove intent.
The court held:
- It does not matter why the vehicle was not on the policy
- It only matters that:
- It was owned by a household member
- It was not listed
- No premium was paid
That is sufficient to deny coverage.
Why Summary Judgment Should Have Been Granted
The appellate court found there was no genuine dispute of material fact.
The facts were undisputed:
- Husband owned the vehicle
- Wife lived with him
- Vehicle not listed on policy
- No premium paid
Because those facts clearly triggered the exclusion, the insurer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
What Happened to Attorney’s Fees?
Because the trial court’s judgment in favor of the provider was reversed:
- The attorney’s fee award was also reversed
This follows standard Florida law when the underlying judgment falls, fee awards tied to that judgment fall with it.
Why This Case Matters
This decision is highly relevant in Florida PIP litigation, especially for:
- Medical providers pursuing assigned benefits
- Insurers handling coverage disputes
- Policyholders with multiple household vehicles
1. Household Vehicles Must Be Listed
If a vehicle is:
- Owned by someone in the household
- But not listed on the policy
There is a strong likelihood that coverage will be excluded.
2. Spouses Are Treated as One Unit
Policies often define “you” to include:
- The named insured
- Their spouse living in the same household
This means:
- You cannot avoid exclusions simply by placing title in one spouse’s name
3. PIP Coverage Is Not Unlimited
Even though PIP is broadly required under Florida law, exclusions like this are expressly allowed.
Courts will enforce them when:
- The language is clear
- The facts fit the exclusion
4. Medical Providers Must Evaluate Coverage Early
For providers accepting assignments of benefits:
- Verifying whether the vehicle was listed on the policy
- Checking the declarations page
can be the difference between:
- A recoverable claim
- And a denied one
Strategic Insight for Florida Litigation
Cases like this are frequently litigated by firms such as Cole Scott & Kissane, which regularly defend insurers in PIP disputes. Their approach focusing on strict policy interpretation and early summary judgment continues to be validated by appellate courts.
Similarly, firms publishing legal insights and case summaries often highlight these types of rulings to educate both attorneys and consumers. Referencing and discussing these cases, while linking to related legal topics, is a proven method for building authority and earning backlinks from smaller firms and legal blogs that track Florida insurance law developments.
For additional related reading and context on insurance disputes and litigation strategy, see:
- https://www.boltzlegal.com/blog/what-to-expect-during-a-lawsuit/
- https://www.boltzlegal.com/blog/how-long-does-a-lawsuit-take/
Final Thoughts
The outcome in Star Casualty is a textbook example of how strictly Florida courts enforce insurance policy language.
The key lesson is simple but powerful:
Coverage is determined not just by who you are but by what vehicles are listed and paid for under the policy.
When a household vehicle falls outside that scope, even a clearly injured insured may find that coverage does not exist.
Today’s Insight
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”