Opinion ID: 1695790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: proration

Text: We further hold that the issue of proration in this case is not yet ripe for review because there has been no recovery and no trial court ruling as to how any recovery would be divided. Nonetheless, the trial court may find our decision in Powell, supra, to be instructive on this issue. In Powell we wrote the following: This holding requires calculation and comparison of two amounts, (1) the amount of the plaintiff's total loss and (2) the total amount that the plaintiff receives in compensation for that loss. The determination of what the plaintiff's loss is, and whether he has been made whole for that loss, is a question of fact. Calculation of the plaintiff's loss requires the finder of fact to consider all elements of that loss, including, but not limited to, damage to property, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of wages, and disability. Because punitive damages are not an element of compensation, they can not be included in the calculation of the plaintiff's loss. Determining whether the indemnitee is made whole should be based on the principle that the indemnitee should be made whole, but not more than whole. Likewise, calculation of the amount received in compensation requires consideration of every payment made to, or on behalf of, the plaintiff that arises out of the damages sustained in the event that gave rise to the cause of action. 581 So.2d at 778. Therefore, based on our decision in Powell, we reverse the trial court's ruling as to when Sanders's right to subrogation arises. We affirm the grant of Sanders's motion to intervene. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and ADAMS, JJ., concur. MADDOX, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur in the result. STEAGALL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.