Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Murphy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Murphy

327 So. 2d 62, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14636

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 5, 1976

DocketNo. Y-391

StatusPublished

This text of 327 So. 2d 62 (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Murphy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Murphy, 327 So. 2d 62, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14636 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In its briefs and oral argument appellant raises numerous important procedural problems inherent in determining equitable distribution of “PIP benefits” which were not presented nor reached in White v. Reserve Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1st, 1974, 299 So.2d 661; Unigard Insurance Company v. Davis, Fla.App. 1st, 1974, 299 So.2d 667. Reyes v. Banks, Fla. App. 4th, 1974, 292 So.2d 39 and other related cases. Unfortunately, none of the points here so presented were raised nor preserved at the trial court level and may not therefore be here resolved by us. We do, however, feel constrained to observe that there may well be a distinction between the evaluation of a “claim” and “loss”. Further, we would observe, that such an evaluation may not be accomplished in a vacuum and that such things as an injured person’s preexisting condition, questionable liability, venue (as related to prior experience as to size of jury verdicts) and the traditional concept of un[63]*63predictability of the outcome of a jury trial would all logically, together with numerous other considerations not necessary to be detailed here, be considered in making such an evaluation.

The only point properly preserved for our consideration on this appeal relates to the award of attorney’s fees, which award we find to have been proper under the circumstances of this case.

The order here appealed is therefore

Affirmed.

Appellee has also moved for attorneys’ fees incident to this appeal. That motion is granted and the trial court is directed, after appropriate proceedings, to fix and award same.

It is so ordered.

BOYER, C. J., MILLS, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In its briefs and oral argument appellant raises numerous important procedural problems inherent in determining equitable distribution of “PIP benefits” which were not presented nor reached in White v. Reserve Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1st, 1974, 299 So.2d 661; Unigard Insurance Company v. Davis, Fla.App. 1st, 1974, 299 So.2d 667. Reyes v. Banks, Fla. App. 4th, 1974, 292 So.2d 39 and other related cases. Unfortunately, none of the points here so presented were raised nor preserved at the trial court level and may not therefore be here resolved by us. We do, however, feel constrained to observe that there may well be a distinction between the evaluation of a “claim” and “loss”. Further, we would observe, that such an evaluation may not be accomplished in a vacuum and that such things as an injured person’s preexisting condition, questionable liability, venue (as related to prior experience as to size of jury verdicts) and the traditional concept of un[63]*63predictability of the outcome of a jury trial would all logically, together with numerous other considerations not necessary to be detailed here, be considered in making such an evaluation.

The only point properly preserved for our consideration on this appeal relates to the award of attorney’s fees, which award we find to have been proper under the circumstances of this case.

The order here appealed is therefore

Affirmed.

Appellee has also moved for attorneys’ fees incident to this appeal. That motion is granted and the trial court is directed, after appropriate proceedings, to fix and award same.

It is so ordered.

BOYER, C. J., MILLS, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 So. 2d 62, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-accident-indemnity-co-v-murphy-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack