WILLIAM W. HUGHES, JR., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, ETC., APPELLEE
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.
Hughes, as personal representative of two estates, challenged the trial court's deduction of $50,000 in uninsured motorist (UM) benefits from a jury damage award. The court reversed, holding that Florida law prohibits defendants from setting off UM benefits against judgments.
A defendant cannot set off against a judgment any amounts paid to a plaintiff as UM benefits. The trial court erred in reducing the award by $50,000, and the judgment must be corrected to add back that amount.
[1] A trial court cannot set off uninsured motorist benefits against a jury's award of compensatory damages.
[2] An appellate court cannot consider documents attached to an appellate brief that were not part of the record presented to the lower tribunal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 defendant cannot set-off against a judgment any amounts paid to a plaintiff as UM benefits”
Establishes the core holding that UM benefits are not subject to set-off under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHughes, as personal representative of the estates of William W. Hughes, Sr., and Martha Hughes, received a jury award of compensatory damages. The tri…
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 Collateral Source Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William W. Hughes, Jr., as personal representative of the estates of William W. Hughes, Sr., and Martha Hughes, (“appellant”) challenges the trial court’s deduction of the amount of uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits received by appellant from the jury’s award of compensatory damages. We reverse.
Section 768.041(2), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that if the plaintiff has provided a release or covenant not to sue in partial satisfaction of the damages sued for, the trial court may set-off that amount from the final judgment. Enterprise Leasing Company South Central, Inc. (“appellee”) argues on appeal that the trial court properly granted a set-off for the UM benefits because the UM carrier waived its subrogation rights.
However, in support of this argument, appellee cites to a Specific Release between the UM carrier and appellant, which is not in the record but is attached to its appellate brief. As it is not a part of the record but merely attached to appellee’s brief, this Court cannot review the document on ap peal. See Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 617 So. 2d 385, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (stating that it is a basic tenet of the appellate process that an appeal is based only on evidence presented to the lower tribunal); see also Pedroni v. Pedroni, 788 So. 2d 1138, 1139 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (stating that where documents not part of the record are attached to an appellate brief, they will not be considered by the appellate court).
Section 768.76(1), Florida Statutes (2000), requires the trial court to reduce an award for damages by the amount the plaintiff has collected from collateral sources.
However, the supreme court has held that a defendant cannot set-off against a judgment any amounts paid to a plaintiff as UM benefits. Int’l Sales-Rentals Leasing Co. v. Nearhoof, 263 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla.1972); see also Van Winkle v. Johnston, 813 So. 2d 1065, 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (stating that section 768.041(2) does not authorize a set-off for UM benefits); Respess v. Carter, 585 So. 2d 987, 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Thus, the trial court erred in reducing appellant’s award of damages by $50,000, the amount of UM benefits received by appellant.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to correct the Final Judgment to reflect the addition of $50,000.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
MINER, WOLF and LEWIS, JJ„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorsett v. Granvill Dorsett, 902 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ized statement of evidence, which is in the form of a statement of the case and facts, because it relies upon documents not in the record and it was not agreed upon by the parties or approved by the trial court. See Hughes v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 831 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)(“As it is not a part of the record but merely attached to appel-lee's brief, this Court cannot review the document on appeal.”); see also Burke v. Burke, 864 So. 2d 1284, 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Walt v. Walt, 596 So. 2d 761 (Fl…
-
C.D. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 95 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…d asks this Court to take judicial notice of the findings contained in them. However, because these evaluations were not introduced below and are not contained in the record on appeal, we must reject her invitation. See Hughes v. Enter. Leasing Co., 831 So. 2d 1240, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“As it is not part of the record but merely attached to the ap-pellee’s brief, the Court cannot review the document on appeal.”). Because the record reflects that C.D. failed to meet her burden of establishing that she su…
-
Elalouf v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 311 So. 3d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Int'l Sales - Rentals Leasing Co. v. Nearhoof, 263 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1972)
- Respess v. Fairley Kave Carter, 585 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Pedroni v. Pedroni, 788 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Agency FOR Health Care Admin. v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 617 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Crowley v. State, 813 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Terri van Winkle, P. A. v. Johnston, 813 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)