 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Budget Rent-A-Car Systems Inc. v. Castellano6/23/1999
JANUARY TERM 1999
Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. ("Budget") appeals from a final judgment in a personal injury case in which the trial court refused to apply a collateral source set-off for payable personal injury protection ("PIP") and medical payment ("medpay") benefits, and awarded prejudgment interest from the date of verdict instead of the date of final judgment.
Of the three points it raises on appeal, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Joseph and Patricia Castellano, while operating their automobile, were injured in a collision with two other cars driven by Jerry Ken Mock and Urey Burrell. Budget owned the rental car that Mock was driving. The Castellanos subsequently sued Budget, Mock, Burrell, and their UM carrier, Amica Mutual Insurance Company ("Amica"). After a nine- day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Castellanos for compensatory damages ($613,074.12 for Mr. Castellano; $11,406 for Mrs. Castellano), which included an award of future medical expenses to Mrs. Castellano which was reduced to present money value to $7,000.
After trial, Budget filed a motion to set off the available PIP and medpay benefits that the Castellanos had under their policy of insurance with Amica. The Castellanos also filed a motion seeking prejudgment interest from the date of the verdict until the time final judgment was entered. The court denied the motion and entered judgment against Budget and Mock in the amount of $506,050.26, representing their share of liability for the Castellanos' compensatory damages. It later entered judgment in the amount of $3,640.14 in prejudgment interest and $866.70 in post- judgment interest against Budget and Mock. This appeal followed.
REFUSING TO REDUCE VERDICT FOR FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES BY AVAILABLE PIP BENEFITS
Budget first argues the court erred in not reducing Mrs. Castellano's verdict by the PIP benefits she had available at the time of judgment. Under section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (1997), an injured party has no right to recover any damages for which PIP benefits have been paid or are "payable." As such, the tortfeasor is exempted from liability for damages to the extent that such PIP benefits have been paid or are "payable" for such injuries. § 627.737(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). To prevent double recovery by the claimant, the statutes further direct that the trial court shall reduce the amount of any award by the total amount which have been paid or are otherwise "available" for the benefit of the injured claimant from all collateral sources. § 768.76, Fla. Stat. (1997); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. v. Matthews, 498 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1986).
At the time of final judgment in this case, the district courts were in conflict as to the definition of "payable" as used in sections 627.736(3) and 627.737(1). Compare Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rudnick, 706 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(holding that "payable" referred to those medical bills already incurred by the plaintiff before trial but that had not been processed for payment), rev. granted, No. 92,080 (Fla. May 27, 1998) with Kokotis v. DeMarco, 679 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(holding "payable" included future expenses resulting from the claimed injury), rev. den., 689 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1997). Since entry of the final judgment, however, the supreme court resolved this conflict by adopting the definition of "payable" as used in Kokotis. Rollins v. Pizzarelli, No. 92,080 (Fla. Feb. 4, 1999). In doing so, it held that Florida's no-fault scheme requires the trial court to set off an award of future medical damages by the amount of the plaintiff's PIP benefits which remain at the time of judgment. Id.
Page 1 2 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|