Valdez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Valdez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

381 So. 2d 743, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16323

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 1, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1230

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 381 So. 2d 743 (Valdez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) 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

Valdez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 381 So. 2d 743, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16323 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to order a new trial on damages upon a holding that the jury verdict of no damages was against the manifest weight of the evidence adduced at the trial of this cause. Without dispute, the plaintiff Hector Valdez was entitled to PIP benefits from his insurer, the defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as to reasonable expenses for medical treatment rendered by Dr. Fonseca following the subject accident. In addition, it is our view that the defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company was also obligated to pay PIP benefits to the plaintiff Hector Valdez for reasonable medical and hospital expenses incurred during the plaintiff’s three day stay at Mt. Sinai Hospital in January 1977 for diagnostic tests. Banyas v. American Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 359 So.2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); § 627.736(1), Fla.Stat. (1979).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to order a new trial on damages upon a holding that the jury verdict of no damages was against the manifest weight of the evidence adduced at the trial of this cause. Without dispute, the plaintiff Hector Valdez was entitled to PIP benefits from his insurer, the defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as to reasonable expenses for medical treatment rendered by Dr. Fonseca following the subject accident. In addition, it is our view that the defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company was also obligated to pay PIP benefits to the plaintiff Hector Valdez for reasonable medical and hospital expenses incurred during the plaintiff’s three day stay at Mt. Sinai Hospital in January 1977 for diagnostic tests. Banyas v. American Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 359 So.2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); § 627.736(1), Fla.Stat. (1979).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 So. 2d 743, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdez-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack