298 So.3d 53
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Susan Matrisciani was a front-seat passenger injured in a rear-end collision; she sued the negligent driver and her insurer Garrison for UIM benefits.
- Garrison had already paid Matrisciani $10,000 in PIP and $1,000 in Med-Pay and reserved a right to recover duplicate payments; Garrison served a $1,000 proposal for settlement resolving all claims against Garrison and requiring satisfaction of relevant liens (Medicare lien then ~$29,211).
- Court granted Matrisciani partial summary judgment for $19,461.31 in medical expenses before trial; parties agreed collateral-source setoffs would be determined post-verdict.
- Jury awarded $92,000 (including $48,000 past medical); Matrisciani later settled with the negligent driver and a $111,461.31 judgment was entered (jury verdict plus summary-judgment amount) without Garrison’s participation.
- Trial court granted Garrison’s post-trial motions: remitted past-medical award to amounts in evidence, applied setoffs (including $10,000 PIP and ~$29,711 for Medicare/contractual reductions), concluded Garrison owed $0 UIM exposure, and awarded Garrison attorney’s fees under its $1,000 proposal for settlement.
- Matrisciani appealed several rulings (remittitur/setoffs, Medicare reductions, and enforcement of Garrison’s proposal for settlement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remittitur of past medical damages | Jury award should stand; verdict controls | Award exceeded medical bills in evidence and included improper elements | Remittitur proper; reduce past-medical award to the amount supported by evidence submitted to jury |
| PIP setoff and premium-credit | If PIP setoff allowed, plaintiff is entitled to credit for premiums paid | PIP payments are collateral-source setoffs | PIP setoff allowed, but trial court erred by not crediting plaintiff for PIP premiums she paid |
| Medicare/contractual reductions as post-trial setoff | Trial court erred reducing verdict post-trial for Medicare payments; Medicare benefits are not setoff-able post verdict | Defendant sought reduction to amounts actually paid by Medicare/contractual payors | Court held Medicare reductions are an evidentiary/trial issue, not a post-trial setoff; reducing verdict post-trial for Medicare disallowances was error |
| Enforceability of Garrison’s $1,000 proposal & fee entitlement | Proposal ambiguous and not made in good faith; fees not warranted | Proposal was legally sufficient, limited to Garrison, and made in good faith | Proposal was legally sufficient and made in good faith; but entitlement/amount of attorney’s fees must await recalculation of net judgment after proper reductions (remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Saavedra, 65 So. 3d 1185 (affirming remittitur standard) (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Cirillo-Meijer, 50 So. 3d 681 (PIP benefits are collateral-source setoffs) (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Goble v. Frohman, 901 So. 2d 830 (contractual discounts qualify as collateral-source setoffs) (Fla. 2005)
- Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp. v. Lasky, 868 So. 2d 547 (Medicare payments and evidentiary limits on recovery) (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Forest v. Sutherland, 110 So. 3d 525 (credit for PIP premiums against setoff) (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- McKenna v. Carlson, 771 So. 2d 555 (PIP premium credit rationale) (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Saenz v. Campos, 967 So. 2d 1114 (proposal ambiguity where offer could extinguish unrelated claims) (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Fox v. McCaw Cellular Commc’ns of Fla., Inc., 745 So. 2d 330 (assessing good-faith nominal offers) (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)