THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH MURPHY, 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.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. appeals from an award of attorney's fees in a case involving equitable distribution of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's attorney's fee award while noting procedural defects in how the appellant presented certain legal arguments regarding PIP benefits.
The award of attorney's fees by the trial court was proper and is affirmed. The appellate court cannot consider Hartford's arguments regarding the evaluation and distribution of PIP benefits because they were not raised or preserved at trial.
[1] An appellate court cannot resolve issues that were not raised or preserved in the trial court.
[2] The evaluation of a claim or loss may consider an injured person's preexisting condition, questionable liability, venue, and the unpredictability of jury trial outcomes.
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“Unfortunately, none of the points here so presented were raised nor preserved at the trial court level and may not therefore be here resolved by us.”
Establishes the procedural bar preventing appellate review of Hartford's principal arguments regarding PIP benefits evaluation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a dispute over Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits and their equitable distribution between the parties. The trial court awar…
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 Pre-Existing Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In its briefs and oral argument appellant raises numerous important procedural problems inherent in determining equitable distribution of “PIP benefits” which were not presented nor reached in White v. Reserve Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1st, 1974, 299 So. 2d 661; Unigard Insurance Company v. Davis, Fla.App. 1st, 1974, 299 So. 2d 667. Reyes v. Banks, Fla. App. 4th, 1974, 292 So. 2d 39 and other related cases. Unfortunately, none of the points here so presented were raised nor preserved at the trial court level and may not therefore be here resolved by us. We do, however, feel constrained to observe that there may well be a distinction between the evaluation of a “claim” and “loss”. Further, we would observe, that such an evaluation may not be accomplished in a vacuum and that such things as an injured person’s preexisting condition, questionable liability, venue (as related to prior experience as to size of jury verdicts) and the traditional concept of un predictability of the outcome of a jury trial would all logically, together with numerous other considerations not necessary to be detailed here, be considered in making such an evaluation.
The only point properly preserved for our consideration on this appeal relates to the award of attorney’s fees, which award we find to have been proper under the circumstances of this case.
The order here appealed is therefore
Affirmed.
Appellee has also moved for attorneys’ fees incident to this appeal. That motion is granted and the trial court is directed, after appropriate proceedings, to fix and award same.
It is so ordered.
BOYER, C. J., MILLS, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Florentine Reyes v. Leonard L. Banks, 292 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- White v. Reserve Ins. Co., 299 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Unigard Ins. Co. v. Davis, 299 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)