Case Name: Cornelius MOYLAN and Alma Moylan, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1977-02-25
Citations: 343 So. 2d 56
Docket Number: No. 76-323
Parties: Cornelius MOYLAN and Alma Moylan, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee.
Judges: LETTS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 343
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
Cornelius MOYLAN and Alma Moylan, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee.
No. 76-323.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 25, 1977.
Wilton L. Strickland of Ferrero, Middle-brooks & Houston, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Nancy Little Hoffmann of Druck, Grim-mett, Norman, Weaver & Scherer, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
ANSTEAD, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court holding that the appellant insured was not entitled to recover under the medical payments clause of her policy with the appellee carrier.
The medical payments provision provided for coverage of medical bills incurred within one year of the accident involved. However, the insured also had personal injury protection benefits (hereafter referred to as PIP) under the same policy with limits of $5,000.00 and under Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (1975) these PIP benefits are primary. The insured's medical expenses did not reach the $5,000.00 PIP benefits limit until after a year had expired and thereafter her medical expenses went up to some $11,182.14. Her claim under the medical payments clause was then denied on the basis that the year had expired and the trial court upheld the denial.
The one year limitation on the medical payments coverage is clear and unambiguous and has been upheld in Florida. Reliance Mutual Life Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Booher, 166 So.2d 222 (Fla.2nd DCA 1964). Likewise, the legislature has clearly provided that personal injury protection benefits are to be primary. Under these circumstances it may be that the value of medical payments coverage has been sharply reduced with the enactment of no fault insurance under which personal injury protection benefits are made mandatory and primary. However, since medical payments coverage is an optional coverage not required by law, we cannot interfere with the terms of the contract made between the parties in providing for such coverage.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
LETTS, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion.