JOSEPH HENRY BENNETT, III, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
A tortfeasor is liable for medical expenses and lost wages not covered by PIP insurance without regard to threshold requirements, and an uninsured motorist carrier must provide the same recovery within its coverage limits.
A tortfeasor is liable for the percentage of medical expenses and lost wages not payable under PIP coverage and any amounts exceeding statutory limits, without regard to threshold requirements, and an uninsured motorist carrier must provide equivalent recovery within its coverage limits.
[1] A tortfeasor is liable for medical expenses and lost wages not covered by personal injury protection insurance without regard to statutory threshold requirements, and an…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A tortfeasor is liable to the injured party for the percentage of medical expenses and lost wages not payable under P.I.P. coverage and for any amount of these damages which exceed the statutory limits, without regard to the threshold requirements of section 627.787(2), Florida Statutes.”
Court's statement of the governing legal principle regarding tortfeasor liability
Bennett was injured in an accident involving an uninsured motorist and sought recovery for medical expenses and lost wages under his uninsured motoris…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tortfeasor Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
We reverse the judgment appealed from and remand the case to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment for the appellant in accordance with the jury verdict. A tortfeasor is liable to the injured party for the percentage of medical expenses and lost wages not payable under P.I.P. coverage and for any amount of these damages which exceed the statutory limits, without regard to the threshold requirements of section 627.787(2), Florida Statutes. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Company v. Worthy, 447 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), (a decision not available to the trial judge when he entered the judgment here). Within the limits of his uninsured motorist coverage, the appellant was entitled to the same recovery from his uninsured motorist carrier as he would be in an action against the uninsured tort-fea-sor, so it was error to disallow the amount by which the jury’s award for medical expenses and lost wages exceeded the P.I.P. and medical pay policy limits.
In accordance with the previous ruling of the trial court, appellant will also be entitled to interest on the difference between the amount of the judgment and the jury’s award. Appellee’s contention that the parties stipulated that the excess of medical expense and lost wages was not to be considered in the uninsured motorist claim is not supported in any manner by the record in this case.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mansfield v. Rivero, 620 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1993)…as the Fourth District Court of Appeal, has also held that, although the exemption 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 becau…
-
Daignault v. Allstate Ins. Co., 484 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…uire compensation for claimant’s future medical expenses and taxable costs in pursuing the arbitration claim. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Rutkin, 199 So. 2d 705 (Fla.1967); Bennett v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 477 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); American Indemnity Co. v. Comeau, 419 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). While we recognize there is some possibility that appellant will not benefit from an award for future medical expense because such award may go to another ins…
-
Anderson A. Medina, Sr. v. Peralta, 724 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1999)…nefits was completely in conflict with the parties’ agreement and, more important, with the mandatory terms of section 627.737(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Mansfield v. Rivero, 620 So. 2d 987 (Fla.1993); Bennett v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 477 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). I would therefore remand with directions to reduce the judgment by $8,000.00 and for further appropriate proceedings. [*1191] Medina v. Peralta, 705 So. 2d 703, 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (Schwartz, C.J., dissenting). It appears to…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. Elease Worthy, 447 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)