18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 29a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1801SANC Insurance — Personal injury protection — Directed verdict — Error to direct verdict for medical provider where there was ample evidence to support jury’s verdict in favor of insurer concluding that provider’s services were related, but not medically necessary
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. AIDA LUZ SANCHEZ, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 09-107 AP and 09-568 AP, Consolidated. L.C. Case No. 05-12072 SP 05. November 3, 2010. On Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County. Counsel: Lara J. Edelstein, United Automobile Insurance Company, Office Of The General Counsel, for United Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant. Stuart B. Yanofsky, for Aida Luz Sanchez, Appellee.
(Before LEESFIELD, DRESNICK, AND ECHARTE, JJ.)
(PEDRO P. ECHARTE, Jr., Judge.) The insured/appellee, Aida Luz Sanchez (Sanchez), filed a complaint against the insurer/appellant, United Automobile Insurance Company (United), to recover Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits. United filed an Answer and Affirmative defenses, denying that the bills were reasonable, related or necessary.
The matter was tried. After Sanchez rested, the trial court denied her motion for directed verdict. At the conclusion of the evidence, Sanchez renewed her motion for directed verdict. The trial court declined ruling on the motion, and allowed the matter to go to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of United Auto, concluding that the services were related but not medically necessary. After the verdict, Sanchez renewed her motion for directed verdict in writing as requested by the trial judge. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court entered an Order directing a verdict for Sanchez, and a Final Judgment consistent with this ruling. United appeals this judgment, as well as the Order awarding attorneys fees to Sanchez.
After considering this matter, We agree with United that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict in favor of United. Therefore, the court erred when it directed a verdict for the Plaintiff. See Pritchett v. Jacksonville Auction, Inc., 449So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Therefore, We hereby REVERSE and REMAND with directions to reinstate the jury’s verdict.
Additionally, We hereby REVERSE the fee judgment entered in favor of Sanchez since reversal of the underlying judgment requires reversal of the fee award. Marty v. Bainter, 727 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D2273a].
We also DENY Sanchez’s request for section 627.428, Florida Statutes, appellate attorney’s fees since Sanchez is not obtaining an appellate judgment in its favor as statutorily required.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions. (LEESFIELD and DRESNICK JJ, concur.)
