CHARLES MCCLELLAN, APPELLANT,
v.
INDUSTRIAL FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, JEROME ABBATE AND ALAN JAMES BEAUDOIN, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 1985-09-25
No. 84-2541
HERSEY, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.
475 So. 2d 1015 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1985) Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In this Florida automobile negligence case, the plaintiff appealed a jury verdict finding no permanent injury, which barred recovery entirely. The court reversed, holding that even without permanent injury, a plaintiff can recover from the tortfeasor for the uninsured portions of medical expenses and lost income (20% and 40% respectively) not covered by no-fault insurance.


Holding

A plaintiff who fails to prove permanent injury is not entirely barred from recovery. Instead, the plaintiff may recover from the tortfeasor for the 20% of medical expenses and 40% of lost gross income not covered by no-fault PIP insurance, as well as for damages exceeding policy limits. Permanent injury is required only to recover for pain, suffering, and other non-economic damages.


Headnotes

[1] A plaintiff who fails to reach the threshold of permanent injury in an automobile negligence case may still recover damages for a portion of medical expenses and lost gro…

[2] Florida's no-fault insurance law allows an injured party to sue a tortfeasor for the remaining out-of-pocket expenses and lost income not covered by PIP benefits.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Upon a finding that there is no permanent injury, a plaintiff is precluded from any recovery only to the extent that the benefits described in s. 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be payable but for any exclusion authorized by ss. 627.730-627.-7405”

Establishes the core holding that absence of permanent injury does not bar all recovery, only recovery of benefits payable under no-fault insurance.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Charles McClellan sued for damages from an automobile accident. The defendants admitted liability, so the jury was asked only to determine damages. Th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
BARKETT, Judge.

BARKETT, Judge.

This appeal emanates from an automobile negligence case wherein the defendants admitted liability and the jury was asked to determine only the issue of damages. The jury found that the plaintiff failed to reach the threshold of permanent injury. The verdict form submitted by defendants and used by the jury provided that the plaintiff accordingly would not be entitled to any damages.

Charles McClellan, plaintiff below, complains that the court erred in submitting this verdict form to the jury. We agree and reverse the lower court’s judgment for the defendants.

Upon a finding that there is no permanent injury, a plaintiff is precluded from any recovery only

to the extent that the benefits described in s. 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be payable but for any exclusion authorized by ss. 627.730-627.-7405....

§ 627.737(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). The benefits described in section 627.736(1) are limited to 80% of medical expenses incurred, 60% of lost gross income, and death benefits. § 627.736(1), Fla.Stat. (1983).

McClellan correctly argues that even though he did not suffer a permanent injury, he may still sue the tortfeasor for benefits not payable under section 627.736(1) (i.e., 20% of his medical expenses and 40% of his lost gross income). In fact, the ability to sue for these amounts was one of the bases upon which the supreme court relied in holding Florida’s no-fault insurance law constitutional in Chapman v. Dillon, 415 So. 2d 12, 18 (Fla.1982):

Under the new provisions the injured party still recovers most of his out-of-pocket expenses from his own insurer and is. allowed to bring suit for the remainder. As the remaining amount subject to suit is drastically reduced from what it would have been if there had not been any no-fault coverage, the incentive to settle is greatly increased. The amount of PIP coverage that is provided is sufficient to prevent a party from being forced into dire financial circumstances and accepting unduly small settlements. [Emphasis supplied.]

In Iowa National Mutual Insurance Company v. Worthy, 447 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), the fifth district discussed the pertinent sections of our no-fault insurance law. The court stated:

Section 627.737(1), Florida Statutes, undertakes to exempt a tortfeasor from tort liability for damages because of bodily injury caused by a motor vehicle only “to the extent that benefits described in s. 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be payable but for any [authorized] exclusion.... ” Therefore, under the statutes cited and Lasky and Chapman', without meeting the thresholds in section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes, the tortfeasor and his liability carrier, here State Farm, is liable to the injured party for the 20 percent of medical expenses not payable under the PIP coverages provided by section 627.736(l)(a) and the jO percent of lost gross income and earning capacity not payable under the PIP coverage provided by section 627.736(l)(b), Florida Statutes, and for 100 percent of those damages as exceeds the applicable policy limits. Of course, after meeting the thresholds of section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes, the injured party may also recover in tort from the tortfeasor and his liability carrier for all pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience resulting from bodily injury caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle.

Id. at 1001.

Similarly, in Thompson v. Caruso, 458 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), this court, citing Chapman and Worthy, reversed a trial court’s judgment for the defendant, and remanded “for a determination of Thompson’s out-of-pocket expenses.” Accordingly, McClellan is entitled to recover the 20% of his medical expenses and 40% of his lost gross income not payable under the PIP coverages, and we remand for a determination of these amounts subject, of course, to any collateral sources of indemnity under section 627.7372, Florida Statutes (1983).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Mansfield v. Rivero, 620 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1993)
    …n applies where there is coverage, the tortfeasor is liable only for medical expenses not payable under the PIP coverage. Bennett v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 477 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); McClellan v. Industrial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 475 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Worthy. Accordingly, because the record reflects that both the Mansfields and the Riveros had PIP coverage as required by the statute, and because the jury found that no permanent injury existed, the Mansfields were exempted fr…
  • DeLONG v. The Wickes Co., 545 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
    …d future medical expenses. Ordinarily in automobile accident cases such as this, before a jury may render an award for pain and suffering, there has to be a threshold finding of permanent injury. See McClellan v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 475 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); § 627.737(2), Fla.Stat. (1987).4 In the case at hand, a jury finding of no permanent injury as to Mrs. DeLong and a one to two percent permanent disability as to the daughter, as well as permanent facial scarring, was certainly…
  • Standard Jury Instructions-Civil Cases (1.0, 613 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 1993)
    …627.737(2), Fla.Stat. (1991); Smey v. Williams, 17 Fla.L.Weekly 2477, [608 So. 2d 886] (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Cronin v. Kitler, 485 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986); McClellan v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 475 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Bennett v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., 477 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); see contra Josephson v. Bowers, 595 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Therefore, negligence will still be an issue for the jury to decide where…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw