Sternberg v. Allstate Ins. Co., 900 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). · Go Syfert
Sternberg v. Allstate Ins. Co., 900 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

If an uninsured motorist policy limits non-economic damages to specific statutory injuries, the jury must decide whether the injury is permanent.

Plaintiffs appeal a jury verdict in an action for uninsured motorist coverage, arguing that the trial court erred by requiring them to prove permanent injury to recover non-economic damages. The central question is whether permanency is a prerequisite for recovery under specific state statutes when the policy limits coverage for non-economic damages. Applying existing precedent, the court determines that if a policy limits non-economic damages to injuries described under the relevant statute, permanency is an issue that must be decided by the jury. The court affirms the trial court's ruling.

3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tibor STERNBERG and Sandra Sternberg, Appellants,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
4D04-917.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Apr 27, 2005.
Published opinion
900 So. 2d 732
2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5977
2005 WL 957600
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Steven Warm of the Law Offices of Steven Warm, Boca Raton, for appellants.

Richard A. Sherman, Sr., of the Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Heidi S. Reiff of the Law Offices of Lawrence J. Signori, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Tibor and Sandra Sternberg, appeal from the final judgment entered upon a jury verdict against them in their action for uninsured motorist coverage against Allstate Insurance Company. They raise three points on appeal and we affirm on all points. We choose to address only one.

The Sternbergs argue that the trial court erred in requiring them to prove a permanent injury under sections 627.727(7) and 627.737(2), Florida Statutes (1999). They assert that, under the statutes, permanency is not a prerequisite to recovery of non-economic damages from a party's uninsured motorist carrier for injuries caused by an uninsured motorist without liability or PIP coverage. This point is controlled by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Dixon, 732 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), which held that if the policy providing UM coverage limited coverage for non-economic damages to injuries as described in section 627.737(2), then permanency is an issue which must be decided by the jury.

Affirmed.

GUNTHER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.