Buchman v. McDonald

Summary

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal held that the trial court improperly offset a negligence damages award with contractual insurance adjustments for medical expenses the jury did not award and with a PIP payment for an MRI expense excluded from the award. The court interpreted sections 768.76 and 627.736, Florida Statutes, as preventing double recovery but not permitting offsets for losses not included in the jury's damages award. The court reversed in part, directed entry of a $5,560 setoff, and affirmed in all other respects.

Holdings

1. Although courts generally refrain from looking behind a lump-sum award, an appellate court may identify the expenses included in the award when the evidence and trial arguments permit a direct and precise match.
2. Section 768.76 does not permit a setoff for collateral-source payments or contractual discounts corresponding to losses for which the jury awarded no damages.
3. PIP benefits may not be offset against a damages award when the corresponding expense was not included in the damages awarded by the jury.
4. Buchman could not raise the PIP-premium argument for the first time on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Florida's collateral-source statute permits a posttrial setoff for insurance discounts associated with medical expenses that the jury did not award.
2. Whether PIP benefits may be offset against a damages award when the corresponding medical expense was not included in the jury's award.
3. Whether the appellate court may determine which expenses were included in a lump-sum verdict when the evidence and closing arguments permit a direct match between the award and specific expenses.
4. Whether Buchman could argue on appeal that her PIP premium should be deducted from the PIP setoff when that argument was not preserved below.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded