From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laughinghouse v. Aiello

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 24, 1975
320 So. 2d 869 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

Opinion

No. 74-1326.

October 24, 1975.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Orange County, Claude R. Edwards, J.

Karl O. Koepke and Calvin Lenox, III, of Whitaker Koepke Assoc., Orlando, for appellant.

Monroe E. McDonald, of Sanders, McEwan, Mims McDonald, Orlando, for appellees, Paul Aiello and Insurance Co. of North America.

Gary H. Rushmer and Jeffrey D. Keiner, of Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson Wharton, Orlando, for appellees, Robert L. Bailey and Amica Mut. Ins. Co.


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.


Summaries of

Laughinghouse v. Aiello

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 24, 1975
320 So. 2d 869 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)
Case details for

Laughinghouse v. Aiello

Case Details

Full title:JULIAN E. LAUGHINGHOUSE, APPELLANT, v. PAUL AIELLO ET AL., APPELLEES

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 24, 1975

Citations

320 So. 2d 869 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n

The presence of these two factors, we think, justified the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' directed…