West Palm Beach car wreck and you did not have any PIP benefits, The bad guy gets a $10,000.00 Break

You got into a West Palm Beach car wreck and you did not have any PIP benefits. Does that mean the bad guy gets a break for the first 10,000.00 of your bills? Maybe, probably yes!

What happens if you get hurt in a Palm Beach County or West Palm Beach car wreck and you tell you attorney that you do not have PIP, or Personal Injury Protection benefits, well your lawyer is going to tell you that you messed up. Basically, you are self insured for the first $10,000.00 of your damages.
The case which holds all of the authority in this matter is HOLT, v. KING No. 97-0209. Feb. 18, 1998.
After judgment was entered against insured tort-feasor in personal injury action brought by uninsured driver, the Circuit Court, Broward County, John T. Luzzo, J., denied tort-feasor's motion for set-off, and he appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Shahood, J., held that tort-feasor was entitled to set-off for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) that would have been payable to injured driver, who was uninsured in contravention of Florida's no-fault laws.

The rule of law born out of this cases states: “ Insured tort-feasor was entitled to set-off for personal injury protection (PIP) (see florida statutes 627.733) benefits that would have been payable to injured driver, who was uninsured in contravention of Florida's no-fault laws; uninsured driver was self-insured to extent of 80% of her own medical expenses, entitling insured tort-feasor to exemption from tort liability to same extent. West's F.S.A. § 627.733.”
He court further writes: “The sole question presented by this appeal is whether an insured tortfeasor, appellant in this case, is entitled to a set-off for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) when the claimant is uninsured in contravention of Florida's no-fault laws. The trial court disallowed appellant a PIP set-off. We reverse and remand.” Behold the awesome power of the Florida Supreme Court… ?

The above fact pattern was distinguished from a fact pattern where a car accident victim gets into their friend’s car for example and then the friend gets into a wreck. Then it comes to light that the friend had Person Injury Protection insurance, but the person themself had no PIP on their own vehicle. This means that they can still treat under the PIP of the driver, even though they let their own PIP lapse the tortfeasor does not get a break. This is done for public policy reasons and can be distinguished from the case at hand.

The Court in Ward v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 364 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), “relied upon by appellee and the trial court, did not involve a tortfeasor 's right to a set-off pursuant to the statutory tort exemption, but, rather, involved the question of whether public policy relieves an insurer of his contractually-undertaken duty to a claimant when the claimant has failed to comply with the no-fault laws. In Ward, as in this case, the injured claimant did not have the mandatory automobile insurance on her own vehicle. However, she was injured while occupying another person's vehicle, which was insured. Under the vehicle owner's insurance policy, the claimant was entitled to PIP coverage. In holding in favor of the claimant, the Second District applied the general principle of Florida law that a party is not relieved of its contractually-undertaken responsibilities simply because the other party has violated the law in some way.”