Opinion ID: 1708066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Must evidence of PIP benefits for purposes of setoff be presented to the trier of fact?

Text: The first certified question asks whether, in an automobile accident case, evidence of PIP benefits must be presented to the trier of factbe it a judge or juryfor purposes of a setoff defense. The simple answer is yes. In such cases, section 627.736(3) governs the setoff of PIP benefits. See generally Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So.2d 197, 200 n. 3 (Fla.2001); Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So.2d 294, 297 (Fla.2000); McKenna v. Carlson, 771 So.2d 555, 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The Florida Statutes contain at least two provisions governing the presentation of collateral sources available to the plaintiff. Section 768.76(1), Florida Statutes (2001), entitled Collateral sources of indemnity, provides: (1) In any action to which this part applies in which liability is admitted or is determined by the trier of fact and in which damages are awarded to compensate the claimant for losses sustained, the court shall reduce the amount of such award by the total of all amounts which have been paid for the benefit of the claimant, or which are otherwise available to the claimant, from all collateral sources; however, there shall be no reduction for collateral sources for which a subrogation or reimbursement right exists. Such reduction shall be offset to the extent of any amount which has been paid, contributed, or forfeited by, or on behalf of, the claimant or members of the claimant's immediate family to secure her or his right to any collateral source benefit which the claimant is receiving as a result of her or his injury. Thus, under section 768.76(1), the court reduces the jury award by the amount of collateral source benefits. That section itself states that it must be followed in any action in which this part applies. This part refers to Part II of Chapter 768, sections 768.71-.81, Florida Statutes (2001). Part II applies [e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided, ... to any action for damages, whether in tort or in contract. § 768.71(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). The statute clarifies, however, that [i]f a provision of this part is in conflict with any other provision of the Florida Statutes, such other provision shall apply. § 768.71(3), Fla. Stat. (2001). Another provision, section 627.736(3), is in conflict. That section is part of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, sections 627.730-.7405, Florida Statutes (2001), which, among other things, governs suits arising out of motor vehicle accidents. It provides: (3) INSURED'S RIGHTS TO RECOVERY OF SPECIAL DAMAGES IN TORT CLAIMS.No insurer shall have a lien on any recovery in tort by judgment, settlement, or otherwise for personal injury protection benefits, whether suit has been filed or settlement has been reached without suit. An injured party who is entitled to bring suit under the provisions of ss. 627.730-627.7405, or his or her legal representative, shall have no right to recover any damages for which personal injury protection benefits are paid or payable. The plaintiff may prove all of his or her special damages notwithstanding this limitation, but if special damages are introduced in evidence, the trier of facts, whether judge or jury, shall not award damages for personal injury protection benefits paid or payable. In all cases in which a jury is required to fix damages, the court shall instruct the jury that the plaintiff shall not recover such special damages for personal injury protection benefits paid or payable. (Emphasis added.) Thus, in contrast to the procedure under section 768.76(1), in which the court offsets the collateral source amount, under section 627.736(3), the trier of factwhether judge or juryis to offset the amount. As noted, section 768.71(3) provides that any conflicting statute governs over section 768.76. Therefore, in lawsuits concerning motor vehicle accidents, section 627.736(3), not section 768.76(1), applies. [2] PIP benefits are collateral sources; that is, first-party benefits for which the insured has paid a separate premium. Rollins, 761 So.2d at 300. Section 627.736(3) provides that a plaintiff shall have no right to recover any damages for which [PIP] benefits are paid or payable. Therefore, we answer the first question in the affirmative: in automobile accident cases, evidence of PIP benefits must be presented to the trier of fact.