Laughinghouse v. Aiello

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Laughinghouse v. Aiello

320 So. 2d 869

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 24, 1975

DocketNo. 74-1326

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 320 So. 2d 869 (Laughinghouse v. Aiello) 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

Laughinghouse v. Aiello, 320 So. 2d 869 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWNEY, Judge.

The trial court directed a verdict against appellant in the trial of his personal injury suit because the evidence failed to prove any of the threshold requirements of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act so as to entitle appellant to maintain this suit.

We have reviewed the evidence in detail and find that the testimony adduced by appellant and his medical witnesses was sufficient to create a jury question as to whether his medical expenses exceeded the one thousand dollar threshold required by § 627.737, F.S.1973. Allstate Insurance Company v. Ruiz, Fla.App.1974, 305 So.2d 275. Accordingly, direction of a verdict was improper, necessitating reversal for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.

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