ROBERT M. ASSI, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA AUTO AUCTION OF ORLANDO, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Robert Assi appealed a jury verdict awarding him $21,019.23 in economic damages from an automobile accident, where he was found 45% comparatively negligent. The trial court applied a calculation method that subtracted Assi's comparative negligence percentage from total damages before deducting PIP benefits, resulting in him owing the defendants $7,891.22 under their offer of judgment. The court affirmed, holding that Florida law requires this calculation order to preserve the defendants' full statutory tort liability exemption under the no-fault statute.
The trial court's calculation method was correct. Comparative negligence percentage must first be subtracted from total economic damages, and only then may PIP benefits be deducted. This preserves the defendants' full statutory tort liability exemption under Florida's no-fault statute and does not allow the plaintiff's PIP coverage to reduce the defendants' exemption.
[1] In calculating a plaintiff's recovery in an automobile accident case involving comparative negligence and personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, a trial court properl…
[2] Florida's no-fault statutory scheme provides that an injured party has no right to recover damages for which PIP benefits are paid or payable.
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“By initially subtracting the percentage of the plaintiffs comparable negligence from the total economic damages found by the jury, the remaining amount is reduced to the defendant's tort liability.”
Explains the trial court's calculation method and establishes the proper legal standard for applying comparative negligence before PIP benefits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAssi was injured in an automobile accident and sued Florida Auto Auction of Orlando, Inc. and others. A jury awarded him $21,019.23 in economic damage…
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 Tort Liability Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Assi appeals from a final judgment in an automobile accident case in which the jury awarded him $21,019.23 in damages exclusively for his “economic losses” (past medical expenses and past lost earnings).1 Assi was found to have been 45% comparatively negligent. Because the defendants below, Florida Auto Auction of Orlando, Inc., et al., made timely offers of judgment, Assi was held liable to them for $7,891.22. Assi argues on appeal that the trial judge miscalculated this amount and that he should only be hable for $3,392.22. We disagree and affirm.
The trial judge calculated Assi’s judgment as follows: economic damages ($21,019.23) minus Assi’s 45% comparative negligence amount ($9,458.65), minus personal injury protection (PIP) benefits ($10,000), equals $1,560.58. Assi argues that this order of calculations gives the defendants the benefit of his procuring and maintaining an insurance policy with the required PIP coverage. He takes the position that PIP benefits should first be deducted from the total damage award ($21,019.23) minus PIP benefits ($10,000.00), equals $11,019.23, minus his 45% comparable negligence based on the $11,-019.23 sub-total ($4,958.65), equals $6,060.58.
Case law in Florida supports the method of calculation utilized by the trial court in this case. See Wells v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, 659 So. 2d 249, 254, n. 3 (Fla.1995); Olson v. N. Cole Constr., Inc., 681 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Wiggins v. Braman Cadillac, Inc., 669 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Readon v. Lim, 697 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). By initially subtracting the percentage of the plaintiffs comparable negligence from the total economic damages found by the jury, the remaining amount is reduced to the defendant’s tort liability.
Pursuant to Florida’s no-fault statutory scheme, an injured party has “no right to recover any damages for which personal injury protection benefits are paid or payable.”2 Every owner [of a motor vehicle with respect to which security has been provided pursuant to the statute] is “exempted from tort liability for damages because of bodily injury, sickness, ... to the extent that the benefits described in s. 627.736(1) are payable for such injury.”3 Since Assi had such insurance in this case and since the defendants also had the required statutory insurance coverage, the full amount of the defendants’ tort liability found by the jury was entitled to the full amount of the statutory exemption. If Assi’s method of calculations were utilized, a portion of the full PIP exemption is lost to the defendant because, in effect, it is reduced by 55% (the amount of the defendant’s comparable negligence).4 Under Florida’s no-fault statute, if an insured complies with the no-fault law, i.e., obtains PIP benefits, in exchange he receives up to $10,000 for his economic injuries, without regard to fault on his part, and he is shielded from suit for non-economic damages should he injure another, absent certain limited exceptions,5 as well as the $10,000 PIP coverage. The insurer has no right of subrogation with regard to these amounts.6 PIP benefits due from an insurer under section 627.730-627.7405, are deemed to be primary.7
The purpose of the no-fault statutes was to reduce litigation for “small” claims brought by parties and their insurers, and to provide an injured party with quick and certain payment for PIP coverage. The calculation used by the trial court properly encompassed these objectives.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . These kinds of damages are encompassed in the required personal injury protection benefits of Florida’s no-fault law. § 627.736(1), Fla. Stat. . § 627.736(3), Fla. Stat. (1995).
. § 627.737(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).
.Economic damages of $21,019.23, minus Assi’s comparable negligence of $9,458.65, for a subtotal of $11,560.58, minus 55% tort liability of defendants applied to the $10,000 PIP payment ($5,500.00), equals $6,060.58.
. § 627.737, Fla. Stat. . § 737.736(4)(d), Fla. Stat. See Mansfield v. Rivero, 620 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1993); Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., Inc., 296 So. 2d 9 (FIa.1974).
.§ 627.736(4), Fla. Stat.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hibbard v. McGRAW, 918 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…endants under the offer of judgment statute. We also reversed the judgment in favor of the defendants because damages were incorrectly calculated. We rejected plaintiffs other arguments based in part on Assi v. Florida Auto Auction of Orlando, Inc., 717 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). In Assi, we approved the trial court’s method of calculating the net judgment that first diminished the award of economic damages by the plaintiffs comparative fault and then subtracted the amount of PIP benefits. However, in N…
-
Norman v. Farrow, 880 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2004)…WELLS, J. We have for review Norman v. Farrow, 832 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Assi v. Florida Auto Auction of Orlando, Inc., 717 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On December 8, 1998, William Cleff was driving on University Parkway in Escam-bia County, Florida, when his vehicle collided with the rear of Terri La…1 / 2
-
Norman v. Farrow, 832 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ovides in part, “[a]n injured party who is entitled to bring suit ... shall have no right ,to recover any damages for which personal injury protection benefits are paid or payable.” Relying further upon Assi v. Florida Auto Auction of Orlando, Inc., 717 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), appellant maintains that to-obtain the full PIP exemption, she is entitled to a set-off for all amounts of PIP. paid or payable, irrespective of comparative negligence, Appellee relies primarily upon Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wells v. Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 659 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1995)
- Washington v. State, 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)
- Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)
- Mansfield v. Rivero, 620 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1993)
- Olson v. N. Cole Constr., Inc., 681 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Wiggins v. Braman Cadillac, Inc., 669 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Readon v. Mirtha Kim LIM, 697 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)