Case Name: Jeff T. TREVISOL, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Appellee; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-06-26
Citations: 583 So. 2d 703
Docket Number: Nos. 89-1691, 89-1692
Parties: Jeff T. TREVISOL, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Appellee. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 583
Pages: 703–704

Head Matter:
Jeff T. TREVISOL, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Appellee. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Appellee.
Nos. 89-1691, 89-1692.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 26, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 5, 1991.
Russell S. Bohn, Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Rosemary Wilder and Richard A. Sherman, Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., and Heinrich, Gordon, Batchelder, Hargrove, Weihe & Gent, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
Appellee Ford Motor Credit Company entered into a long-term auto lease with Nancy Gerken. On February 8, 1987, Gerken was driving the car when an accident injuring appellant Jeff Trevisol occurred. Tre-visol sued Ford as the owner of the automobile. The trial court entered summary judgment for Ford, finding that section 324.021(9)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), absolves long-term lessors of liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. We reverse on the authority of Kraemer v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1990). See also McCloud v. Wright, 579 So.2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). This is the same result we reached in Powis v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 575 So.2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), a separate case arising out of the same accident.
We note that section 324.021(9)(b) does not relieve Ford of liability here. It applies only to leases requiring lessees to obtain, in addition to certain bodily injury insurance coverages, at least $50,000 in property damage insurance coverage; the lease here only required Gerken to obtain $25,000 in property damage insurance coverage, Therefore, the statute does not apply to this case.
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.