Kokotis v. DeMarco, 95-2156
| Citation | 679 So.2d 296 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-2156,95-2156 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1765, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2248 William KOKOTIS and Antonia Despina Kokotis, Appellants, v. Frank J. DeMARCO, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sharon Lee Stedman of Sharon Lee Stedman, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants.
Benjamin Y. Saxon and Raymonda A. Chakhtoura of Benjamin Y. Saxon, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellee.
In this case, we are faced with an issue similar to, albeit separate from, that considered by the supreme court in Hannah v. Newkirk, 675 So.2d 112 (1996). The question before us is whether PIP benefits payable upon future claims must be reduced from the jury award for future medical expenses.
While driving her father's vehicle, Antonia Despina Kokotis collided with a vehicle being driven by Frank J. DeMarco, causing minor injuries. The jury found Kokotis to be negligent and, although it found that DeMarco suffered no permanent injuries, it awarded him $670 for past medical bills and $10,000 for future medical expenses expected over the next forty-two years. The parties agree that the paid PIP benefits were properly set off against the past medical expenses. Here we are dealing only with the remaining balance of PIP benefits which will be available in the future as additional medical expenses are incurred.
In analyzing this dispute, we should start with the proposition that a tortfeasor is responsible for all damages caused by his or her negligence unless relieved by statute. We are urged by the parties that there are two statutes that may apply to this case--section 627.7372, Florida Statutes (1991), and section 627.737, Florida Statutes (1991).
The parties' primary dispute is which statute is controlling in this case. DeMarco urges that section 627.7372, the collateral source setoff statute which was in effect at the time of the accident, should control. Kokotis, on the other hand, contends that the case is controlled by section 627.737, Florida Statutes (1991), the tort exemption statute.
Section 627.736(3) provides that an injured party shall have no right to recover any damages for which PIP benefits are "paid or payable." Since DeMarco had PIP benefits which were and are available to cover his medical expenses associated with this injury, then to the extent of such coverage, he may not collect such damages from Kokotis. We find that "payable" as used in this statute includes expenses which have not yet accrued but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rollins v. Pizzarelli
...v. Rollins, 704 So.2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), in which the district court recognized conflict with the opinion in Kokotis v. DeMarco, 679 So.2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and certified the following question to this WHETHER THE TERM "PAID OR PAYABLE" IN SECTION 627.736(3), FLORIDA STATUTES (......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rudnick
...v. Rudnick, 706 So.2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), in which the Fourth District certified conflict with the decision in Kokotis v. DeMarco, 679 So.2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), review denied, 689 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1997), on the issue of the definition of the term "payable" found in section 627.736(......
-
Pate v. Renfroe, 97-2281
...704 So.2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), review granted, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Issue 25B, p. i (Fla. June 19, 1998), and Kokotis v. DeMarco, 679 So.2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), review denied mem., 689 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1997). In Pizzarelli the court held that "payable" means unpaid benefits which are al......
-
Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. v. Castellano, No. 4D98-2098
...by the plaintiff before trial but that had not been processed for payment), approved, 761 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2000) 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). Sin......