DIMITRI-EMMANUEL RACINE, APPELLANT,
v.
JOCELYN JEAN-PIERRE AND JENNIFER FRANCOEUR, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Affirmed trial court's denial of offset of jury verdicts against settlement proceeds where settlement included release of claims against non-tortfeasor (mother's insurer) and was not apportioned.
A setoff of jury verdicts is improper when a settlement with a non-tortfeasor includes a release of separate claims against that party's insurer and the settlement amount is not apportioned among different claims.
[1] A setoff of jury verdicts against a settlement is improper when the settlement includes a release of claims against a non-tortfeasor's insurer and the settlement proceeds…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the applicability of the setoff statutes is predicated on the existence of other tortfeasors who are liable for the same injury as the settling party”
Explaining the requirement for setoff eligibility under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRacine was driving his mother's vehicle when he negligently caused an automobile accident injuring Jean-Pierre and Francoeur. The plaintiffs settled w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tortfeasor Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Dimitri-Emmanuel Racine appeals from the trial court’s final judgments which were entered after a jury found him negligent in causing an automobile accident that injured Jocelyn Jean-Pierre and Jennifer Francoeur (collectively referred to as the “plaintiffs”). Racine argues that the trial court erred in not offsetting the amount from both verdicts against him with the entire amount the plaintiffs received from the settlement with Racine’s mother (the owner of the vehicle Racine was driving) and her insurance company. However, because the settlement was, in part, for the plaintiffs’ release of other claims against the mother’s insurance company and the settlement was not apportioned in any way, we find that the trial court properly denied the request to offset the verdicts beyond the mother’s bodily injury policy limits. See Gouty v. Schnepel, 795 So.2d 959, 965 (Fla.2001) (“[T]he applicability of the setoff statutes is predicated on the existence of other tortfeasors who are liable for the same injury as the settling party.” (emphasis added)); Lauth v. Olsten Home Healthcare, Inc., 678 So.2d 447, 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (“When a plaintiff has separate claims, a setoff is inappropriate. A separate and distinct claim is one that involves different elements of damages.” (citation omitted)).
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gouty v. Schnepel, 795 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2001)
- Lauth v. Olsten Home Healthcare, Inc., 678 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)