UDDL Repeal In Florida

Dear Friends and Colleagues;
Attached some background info regarding the UDDL status in Florida:
======================================================================================
Section 627.629,Florida Statutes (2000), permits an insurance company to include the following exclusion in a health insurance contract "Intoxicants and Narcotics: The insurer will not be liable for any loss resulting from the insured being drunk or under the influence of any narcotic unless taken on the advice of a physician."A person is "drunk" when operating a motor vehicle if he or she has a blood alcohol level of .08 gram per alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. See § 316.193, Fla. Stat. (2000). Even though driving under the influence is a crime in Florida, there currently is no statutory authorization for an alcohol exclusion in a Florida No-fault Automobile Insurance PIP policy. See § 627.736(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). When the no-fault laws were first enacted, the legislature did permit an alcohol exclusion in a PIP policy if the circumstances involved a conviction for DUI. See ch. 71-252, § 7, Laws of Fla. See also Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. McInroy, 342 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Experience with that exclusion caused the legislature to withdraw its authorization in 1982. See ch. 82-243, § 554, Laws of Fla. Unfortunately, a Florida Supreme Court decision from 2001 is blocking the UDDL repeal:
"CONCLUSION: Ms. Steck had a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit for driving while intoxicated when she walked into Dale Mabry Highway, a major Tampa thoroughfare, and was struck by a car. Any reasonable, disinterested third party would agree that her injuries suffered in the accident resulted from her drunkenness.
The polestar for interpreting statutes is legislative intent. Statev. Webb,398 So.2d 820, 824 (Fla. 1981). The Legislature permits health insurers to exclude losses,which result from the commission of felonies or engaging in an illegal occupation. Can anyone reasonably believe that when Section 627.629 was enacted to permit exclusions“for any loss resulting from the insured being drunk,” the Legislature intended for this
exclusion to be limited only to biological effects upon the body from the use of intoxicants?
This Court should follow Harris, should specifically reverse Mason II, and should hold that the drunkenness exclusion authorized by Section 627.629, Florida Statutes and included in Ms. Steck’s policy excludes coverage for all expenses caused, either directly or indirectly, by her walking into the path of oncoming traffic while drunk. The summary judgment on liability in favor of Ms. Steck should be reversed, and this case should be remanded with directions that summary judgment be entered in favor of BCBSF in regard to all expenses incurred to treat injuries sustained
in the June 29, 1997 accident.
=====================================================================================

Looking forward to your comments.
Bernd