Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals (“4th DCA”) recently issued an opinion that significantly impacted a jury’s damages award. The court’s ruling represented a major win for the insurers, which successfully set off thousands in duplicated benefits.
In Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company vs. Jeffrey H. Wolfson, Case Nos. 4D18-3652 and 4d19-118 (June 24, 2020), following a car accident, the insured (Jeffrey Wolfson) filed a claim under his UM policies with his insurers, which they did not pay. The insured filed suit. The sole issue presented to the jury related to the insured’s damages. The jury awarded the insured a total of $1,579,629.00 (comprised of: $810,000 for loss of earning; $367,629 for medical damages; and $400,000 for pain and suffering). Post-verdict, the insurers filed a motion to set off from the verdict the amount of any settlements which duplicated any part of the verdict. Nationwide argued that it settled the insured’s UM claim for injuries and lost earnings for $100,000. The insured argued that no Florida Statute expressly authorized an UM carrier to obtain a set off for duplicated benefits paid by another UM carrier. Likewise, the insured settled his claim against AIG for $480,667.50. He argued that the AIG settlement did not duplicate the jury-determine benefits, as it related to his wife’s unpled loss of consortium claim and not injuries and lost earnings claims. The trial court denied the insurers’ motion for set off.
On appeal, the 4th DCA concluded that the set off of the AIG settlement was based on the settlement release’s plain language, which clearly and unambiguously stated it was only for the insured's benefit (“for the benefit of Jeffrey Wolfson”). As to the Nationwide settlement, the 4th DCA noted Section 627.727(1), Fla. Stat., (2018) (in relevant part): “The coverage described under this section shall be over and above, but shall not duplicate, the benefits available to an insured under any workers' compensation law, personal injury protection benefits, disability benefits law, or similar law…” While it does not define “similar law”, the 4th DCA found that because the section was legislatively enacted coverage, therefore personal injury protection benefits and disability benefits law are also legislatively enacted coverages. The 4th DCA concluded that the benefits provided under an UM policy cannot duplicate benefits already paid to an insured under another UM policy. The 4th DCA affirmed the jury’s total award amount but remanded for the trial court to set off the settlement amounts, thereby enter a final judgement of $998,961.50.