Clemons v. Clark

172 So. 2d 242
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 23, 1965·No. No. 64-510·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued the defendant claiming damages for personal injuries received in an automobile collision. The action was instituted after she had signed a release for the property damage she had suffered. The defendant contends that there was a splitting of causes of action. The trial court properly struck this defense. Rosenthal v. Scott, Fla. 1963, 150 So.2d 433.

The plaintiff had received $650.00 from her insurance carrier for her personal injuries because the defendant was uninsured. In the suit against the uninsured motorist to recover for personal injuries, the defendant contended that plaintiff’s recovery should be limited to that amount. This contention was properly denied by the trial court. Finley P. Smith, Inc. v. Schectman, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 460.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clemons v. Clark, 172 So. 2d 242 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

172 So. 2d 242 (Clemons v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ryan v. Gladwell
265 So. 2d 63 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)