12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 126c
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for mistrial and did not misinterpret section 627.736
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. HALLANDALE OPEN MRI, L.L.C., As assignee of Jorge Rodriguez, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 03-10882 (25). October 13, 2004. Robert A. Rosenberg, Judge.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the court on appeal from a final judgment rendered in the Broward County Court. For the reasons stated below, the judgment is affirmed.
The appellant raises two issues in this appeal. The appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when not granting the appellant’s motion for mistrial and the trial court misinterpreted Florida Statute § 627.736.
The standard of review for a trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial is an abuse of discretion standard. Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, 68 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1953). If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it could not be said that the trial court abused its discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). Having reviewed the records, the briefs and applicable case law this court finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying the motion for mistrial.
With regards to the trial court’s interpretation of Florida Statute 627.736, statutory construction requires the statute under consideration to be construed in its entirety and as a whole, and for this view of in pari materia, the court determines the legislative intent. Wilensky v. Fields, 267 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1972). Based on the record reviewed, it is this court’s opinion that the trial court did not misinterpret the statute. Therefore, Appellant’s argument in this regard is without merit.
* * *
