Narrative Opinion Summary
The appeal centers on the appellant's entitlement to the full $10,000 in Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits, despite having a $2,000 deductible. This question has been previously addressed in the case of International Bankers Ins. Co. v. Arnone, 552 So.2d 908 (Fla.1989), which ruled against the insured's position. Consequently, the final judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Judges DELL, STONE, and Associate Judge FRANK RICHARD H. concur with this decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Judicial Decision and Remandsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reverses the final judgment and remands for further proceedings consistent with the referenced precedent.
Reasoning: Consequently, the final judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Personal Injury Protection Benefits and Deductiblessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addresses whether the appellant is entitled to the full amount of PIP benefits despite a deductible, ruling against the appellant based on precedent.
Reasoning: The appeal centers on the appellant's entitlement to the full $10,000 in Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits, despite having a $2,000 deductible.
Precedent in Insurance Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court relies on a prior decision to determine the outcome of the appellant's claim regarding PIP benefits.
Reasoning: This question has been previously addressed in the case of International Bankers Ins. Co. v. Arnone, 552 So.2d 908 (Fla.1989), which ruled against the insured's position.