Phantom of Brevard, Inc. v. Brevard County
3 So. 3d 309, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 2431, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1002 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A local ordinance is not in conflict with a state statute when the state statute is silent on the subject matter regulated by the ordinance, as compliance with the local ordinance does not require a violation of the state statute.
Facts:
- Brevard County enacted Ordinance No. 05-60, which regulated the sale of fireworks within the county.
- Section 10 of the ordinance required any person or entity selling fireworks to obtain and maintain a liability and property damage insurance policy with a minimum limit of $1,000,000.
- A permit to sell fireworks in the county was conditioned upon providing evidence of this financial responsibility.
- Phantom of Brevard, Inc. was a business engaged in the sale of fireworks within Brevard County and was subject to the ordinance's requirements.
Procedural Posture:
- Phantom of Brevard, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Brevard County in the circuit court (trial court), seeking a declaratory judgment that the county's fireworks ordinance was unconstitutional.
- The circuit court entered a final summary judgment in favor of Brevard County.
- Phantom of Brevard, Inc., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed in part but reversed in part, holding that the ordinance's insurance requirement (Section 10) was in conflict with state law and must be severed from the ordinance.
- Both Phantom of Brevard, Inc. and Brevard County sought review in the Supreme Court of Florida due to an express and direct conflict between the Fifth District's decision and a prior decision from the Second District Court of Appeal on a similar ordinance.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a county ordinance that requires fireworks sellers to maintain a liability insurance policy conflict with a state law regulating fireworks, when the state law is silent on insurance requirements?
Opinions:
Majority - Canady, J.
No. A county ordinance requiring fireworks sellers to maintain liability insurance does not conflict with state law when the state law is silent on the matter. A conflict between a local ordinance and a state statute arises only when the two legislative provisions cannot coexist, meaning that in order to comply with one, a violation of the other is required. Here, the state's regulatory scheme for fireworks, chapter 791, contains no provision regarding insurance requirements for sellers. Therefore, a business like Phantom of Brevard can comply with the county's insurance mandate without violating any provision of chapter 791. The ordinance merely supplements the state statute by legislating in an area where the legislature chose to remain silent. The state law's provision for uniform application is not violated because it is the local ordinance, not the state statute, that creates the variance between counties; the state statute itself is still applied uniformly throughout the state.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of local government authority under Florida's home rule powers in relation to state preemption. It establishes that state legislative silence on a specific regulatory detail does not necessarily prohibit local governments from acting in that area. The court reinforces a narrow definition of "conflict," requiring a direct contradiction where compliance with both state and local law is impossible. This precedent empowers counties and municipalities to enact supplemental health, safety, and welfare regulations, such as financial responsibility requirements, in fields already regulated by the state, so long as the local rules do not expressly contradict state law.
