Laughinghouse v. Aiello

320 So. 2d 869
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 24, 1975·No. No. 74-1326·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

320 So. 2d 869 (Laughinghouse v. Aiello) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. United Services Automobile Ass'n
534 So. 2d 919 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)