Narrative Opinion Summary
In a case involving an automobile accident in Florida, Ruth Collins, a passenger, was awarded damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The vehicle was driven by Anna Osler, and the insurance policy was issued by Hastings Insurance Company under Michigan law. After Osler dismissed her appeal, Collins's cross-appeal contested a trial court decision that deducted personal injury protection (PIP) benefits paid by Hastings from her total award. The jurors awarded Collins $340,000, reduced for her 10% comparative negligence. The court found that although the insurance policy was governed by Michigan law, recovery procedures were subject to Florida law where the accident occurred. Michigan law permits reimbursement only when recovery arises from a tort claim outside Michigan. The court agreed the trial court erred in its set-off application, reversing the decision. Florida law recognizes Hastings as a collateral source provider, limiting reimbursement to the actual amount recovered, adjusted for costs and attorney's fees, under section 768.76(4). The trial court's application of section 768.76(1) was incorrect, and the case was remanded for recalculation of reimbursement consistent with this interpretation, affirming the collateral source payment amount.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Michigan Insurance Law in Floridasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that while the insurance policy was governed by Michigan law, the recovery procedures were subject to Florida law due to the accident occurring in Florida.
Reasoning: The court determined that while the insurance policy was governed by Michigan law, the recovery procedures for Hastings were subject to Florida law, as the accident occurred in Florida and the case was tried there.
Florida Collateral Source Rulesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Hastings qualifies as a collateral source provider under Florida law, limiting its reimbursement rights according to section 768.76(4), which is based on the actual recovery adjusted for costs and attorney's fees.
Reasoning: Hastings qualifies as a collateral source provider under Florida law, which limits its reimbursement rights according to section 768.76(4). This section specifies that reimbursement is confined to the actual amount recovered by the claimant, adjusted for costs and attorney's fees.
Reimbursement Rights under Michigan Insurance Codesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Michigan law permits reimbursement only when recovery is realized from a tort claim arising outside Michigan, with a lien on the recovery for the insurer's benefits paid.
Reasoning: Specifically, Michigan law allows for reimbursement only when recovery is realized from a tort claim arising from an accident outside Michigan, with a lien on the recovery for the insurer's benefits paid.
Trial Court Error in Applying Set-Offsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court incorrectly applied section 768.76(1) by adjusting the claimant's damages rather than the provider's reimbursement, necessitating a reversal and remand for recalculation.
Reasoning: The trial court incorrectly applied section 768.76(1), which adjusts the claimant's damages instead of the provider's reimbursement. The judgment is reversed and remanded for recalculation consistent with this interpretation.