4th DCA lays out the fundamentals of post-judgment awards and the applicability of setoffs.

Florida law allows for the challenging of a post-judgment award as being excessive. Per Florida Statutes, 768.74(5), the court considers “whether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account” and “whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence.” In evaluating the total award of damages at issue, the court shall reduce the amount of such award by the total of all amounts which have been paid for the benefit of the claimant from all collateral sources (i.e., PIP benefits, contractual discounts off medical bills and past premium payments on PIP coverage). See Goble v. Frohman, 901 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla. 2005). Accordingly, a claimant may introduce into evidence only the amount of medical bills actually paid.

In this case, the plaintiff obtained a partial summary judgment ruling as to the medical expenses incurred from the accident at issue, which was included as the amount of medical bills in evidence for the jury to consider when calculating its verdict.

In the context of a proposal for settlement, the 4^th DCA notes that a determination of whether a proposal for settlement meets the threshold amount to trigger entitlement to attorney’s fees cannot be made until a net judgment against the offeror is calculated considering all legally authorized reductions. See Fla. Gas Transmission Co. v. Lauderdale Sand & Fill, Inc., 813 So. 2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Under Florida Statutes, 768.79(6), a UIM carrier’s settlement offer should be viewed in relation to the plaintiff’s potential recovery over the tortfeasor’s insurance limits. If the judgment recovered against the tortfeasor is within that tortfeasor’s liability limits, the UIM carrier has no liability and is entitled to a $0 judgment in their favor. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Staszower, 61 So. 3d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Thus, any settlement offer made by a UIM carrier in such a case will be greater than the plaintiff’s recovery. In this circumstance, the 4^th DCA has held that a $1,000 proposal for settlement made by a UIM carrier was made in good faith.

Case Law Alerts, 4^th Quarter, October 2020 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.