Sternberg v. Allstate Insurance Company

900 So. 2d 732, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5977, 2005 WL 957600
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 27, 2005
Docket4D04-917
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 900 So. 2d 732 (Sternberg v. Allstate Insurance Company) 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
Sternberg v. Allstate Insurance Company, 900 So. 2d 732, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5977, 2005 WL 957600 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

900 So.2d 732 (2005)

Tibor STERNBERG and Sandra Sternberg, Appellants,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 4D04-917.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 27, 2005.

Steven Warm of the Law Offices of Steven Warm, Boca Raton, for appellants.

Richard A. Sherman, Sr., of the Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Heidi S. Reiff of the Law Offices of Lawrence J. Signori, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Tibor and Sandra Sternberg, appeal from the final judgment entered upon a jury verdict against them in their action for uninsured motorist coverage against Allstate Insurance Company. They raise three points on appeal and we affirm on all points. We choose to address only one.

The Sternbergs argue that the trial court erred in requiring them to prove a permanent injury under sections 627.727(7) and 627.737(2), Florida Statutes (1999). They assert that, under the statutes, permanency is not a prerequisite to recovery of non-economic damages from a party's uninsured motorist carrier for injuries caused by an uninsured motorist without liability or PIP coverage. This point is controlled by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Dixon, 732 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), which held that if the policy providing UM coverage limited coverage for non-economic damages to injuries as described in section 627.737(2), then permanency is an issue which must be decided by the jury.

Affirmed.

GUNTHER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

Related

STAKEM v. Randolph
431 F. Supp. 2d 782 (E.D. Tennessee, 2006)
Smith v. State
900 So. 2d 732 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
900 So. 2d 732, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5977, 2005 WL 957600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sternberg-v-allstate-insurance-company-fladistctapp-2005.