BENITES V. ALMEIDA

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2007 » BENITES V. ALMEIDA

BENITES V. ALMEIDA

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 06-1132 & 06-2404

Case Date: 12/12/2007

Preview:Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007
Opinion filed December 12, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ Nos. 3D06-1132, 06-2404 Lower Tribunal No. 04-12366 ________________

Luis Benites,
Appellant/Appellee, vs.

Marcos Almeida and Nara Almeida,
Appellees/Appellants.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Robert N. Scola, Jr., Judge. Simon, Schindler & Sandberg, LLP, and Anthony V. Falzon, for appellant/appellee. Shelley Senecal, for appellees/appellants.

Before COPE, GREEN, and SALTER, JJ. COPE, J.

The main issue we address in these consolidated appeals involves the application of a setoff for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. Since plaintiff Luis Benites exhausted all of his PIP benefits for payment of medical expenses, the setoff for PIP benefits should have been applied only to that portion of the verdict which awarded past medical expenses. Plaintiff Luis Benites was involved in an automobile accident in which defendant Nara Almeida admitted to being at fault. Defendant Marcos Almeida, her father, was joined as a defendant because he is the owner of the vehicle. The plaintiff submitted medical bills of $18,702 to his PIP insurer. The PIP printout showed the plaintiff exhausted his $10,000 in PIP benefits. 1 The plaintiff brought suit against the defendants, contending that he had suffered a permanent injury. The plaintiff introduced his medical bills into

evidence at the trial. The jury returned a verdict finding no permanency. It awarded $5,000 for past medical expenses and $2,500 for lost earnings, for a total verdict of $7,500. The question of the PIP setoff was submitted to the trial court post-trial. The parties agree that the entire $10,000 PIP coverage was expended for medical bills. No PIP benefits were paid for lost wages. The plaintiff argued that since the PIP benefits were paid for medical bills only, it follows that the PIP setoff This consisted of $8,000 paid by the insurance company with a $2,000 deductible being attributable to the plaintiff. 2
1

can only be applied to the jury's line item of $5,000 for past medical expenses. The defendants argued that the $10,000 PIP amount should be viewed as a whole, and should be applied to the total verdict of $7,500, leaving a zero recovery for the plaintiff. The defendants' trial counsel also intimated to the trial court

(incorrectly) that the plaintiff would somehow be able to submit his claim for lost wages to the PIP carrier in the future. As appellate counsel acknowledges, the PIP benefits have been exhausted and no further claim would be entertained by the PIP carrier. Under the no-fault law, a plaintiff has "no right to recover any damages for which personal injury protection benefits are paid or payable."

Download BENITES V. ALMEIDA.pdf