EDUARDO OCHOA AND IOWA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
FERNANDO LOPEZ, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1978-05-23
No. 77-1141
Before HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ., and PARKER, J. GWYNN • (Ret.), Associate Judge.
358 So. 2d 1173 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1978) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 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

An appellate court affirmed a jury verdict awarding damages for personal injury in an automobile accident case but reversed a directed verdict on personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The key issue was whether the plaintiff's North Carolina-registered vehicle was required to be registered in Florida, which would trigger mandatory PIP coverage under Florida law.


Holding

The court affirmed the jury's damage award for loss of future earnings, finding it supported by substantial competent evidence. However, the court reversed the directed verdict on PIP benefits because the question of whether the vehicle was required to be registered in Florida presented factual issues unsuitable for summary resolution, and remanded for trial of that narrow issue.


Headnotes

[1] An award of damages for loss of future earnings is proper if supported by substantial competent evidence and not based on speculation.

[2] A directed verdict is improper when the evidence allows for different reasonable inferences regarding a material fact.

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

“A directed verdict should not be entered if the evidence permits different reasonable inferences.”

Establishes the standard for when directed verdicts are improper and supports reversal of the PIP benefits directed verdict.

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

Eduardo Ochoa negligently caused an automobile accident while driving a car owned by Fernando Lopez. Lopez was a passenger in his own vehicle at the t…

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
KEHOE, Judge.

KEHOE, Judge.

This is an appeal by defendants, Eduardo Ochoa and Iowa Mutual Insurance Company (Iowa Mutual), of a final judgment awarding damages to appellee Fernando Lopez, plaintiff below, in a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident. The accident occurred when four young men were traveling home to Miami from college in North Carolina. Lopez was riding as a passenger in his own car at the time of the accident. His car was being driven by Ochoa whose negligence in causing the accident was uncontested at trial. Iowa Mutual was Lopez’s insurer. The only issues presented by this appeal concern the propriety of the damage award and the liability of Iowa Mutual for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the policy it had issued to Lopez.

Appellants contend that the trial court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury that it could consider, as an element of appellee’s damages, his claim for loss of ability to earn money in the future. Appellants argue that the amount of the damages awarded for loss of future earnings was based on speculative evidence. A careful review of the record reveals that this argument is without merit. In our opinion, there was substantial competent evidence adduced at trial to support the .jury’s verdict; therefore, the award was not based on speculative evidence.

Appellants also contend that the trial court erred in directing a verdict awarding PIP benefits to appellee under Florida law. The Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act mandates that every motor vehicle which is required to be registered in Florida must be covered by an insurance policy' which provides PIP benefits. See Section 627.731, .733, and .736, Florida Statutes (1975). The Motor Vehicle Licenses Law, Section 320.02(1), Florida Statutes (1975), requires every owner of a motor vehicle operated or maintained in this state to apply for registration of that vehicle in Florida. Therefore, the central issue determinative of Iowa Mutual’s liability for PIP benefits was whether the Lopez car was required to be registered in Florida.

The evidence showed that the vehicle was purchased, registered and licensed in North Carolina, and, until the day of the accident, had been driven primarily in North Carolina. The policy was issued in that state. It contained no provision for PIP coverage, nor was a premium charged for it. Although Lopez was a temporary resident of North Carolina, he held a Florida driver’s license and was a permanent resident of Miami, Florida.

The issue of whether the Lopez car was required to be registered in Florida presented questions of fact not resolvable pursuant to a motion for a directed verdict. A directed verdict should not be entered if the evidence permits different reasonable inferences. Riccio v. Allstate Insurance Co., 357 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA, opinion filed March 14,1978). Therefore, we reverse the directed verdict, and remand the case to the trial court with directions to try the narrow issue of whether the vehicle was required to be registered in Florida.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Lopez v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 384 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
    …NESBITT, Judge. This is the second appearance of this case before this court. In Ochoa v. Lopez, 358 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), a directed verdict in favor of Lopez was reversed with directions to try the narrow issue of whether the vehicle owned by him and insured under the policy was required to be registered in Florida. Following remand, Lopez filed a…
  • Masdeu v. Quintero, 564 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
    …ine R.R. v. Ford, 92 So. 2d 160, 163 (Fla.1956); Morgan v. Collier County Motors, Inc., 193 So. 2d 35, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). But cf. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shilling, 374 So. 2d 611, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (sufficient evidence shown); Ochoa v. Lopez, 358 So. 2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (evidence was not speculative). Moreover, the plaintiff did not file a motion for a new trial on damages below and further declined to accept any award which was less than $11,500. Instead, the plaintiff urged below and ur…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw