In any action in another florida car insurance requirements province or territory of The country against the licensed insurer, or its insured, arising out of an automobile accident in that province or territory, the insurer shall appear and shall not set up any defence to a claim under a contract evidenced by a motor vehicle liability policy issued in The state, including any defence as to the limit or limits of liability under the contract, that might not be set up if the contract were evidenced by a motor vehicle liability policy issued in the other province or territory.
Nova Scotia, the Northwest Territories florida car insurance requirements and the Yukon Territory each have similar provisions including the reference in the first paragraph to no-fault benefits. ;The clear effect of this section is to make available to a victim who is injured in the province or territory whose statute contains the section, benefits to the levels normally paid under the scheme in that jurisdiction if her insurer is licensed there (and the action is brought there). Therefore a person from the Northwest Territories who is injured in The state and whose insurer is licensed to operate in The state, may claim The state benefits notwithstanding the fact that the policy was made in the Northwest Territories and included lower benefit levels. Save money on your car insurance with Floridacarinsurance.com!
It is not quite so clear, however, whether an insured florida car insurance requirements can sue her insurer in a jurisdiction other than one in which the insurer is licensed for a higher scale of benefits that might prevail in that jurisdiction. This is because paragraph 2 of the section quoted above makes no express reference to no-fault benefits. On one hand, the appearance of the reference in paragraph 1 only suggests that its omission from the second paragraph is deliberate. On the other hand, there is an argument that no-fault benefits are included by the mere reference to liability policies because of the requirement that every contract evidenced by a motor vehicle liability policy shall provide no-fault benefits. This argument has been adopted by a British Columbia court in Shea v. Shea. The court in that case, had to consider the reciprocity clause which applied to automobile insurance before the advent of the government-run scheme. That reciprocity section contained no express reference to no-fault benefits, merely to motor vehicle liability insurance. Nevertheless, the court stated. Florida info can be found here.