Florida Jury Awards $469K in UM Injury Crash Case

Case Background

This legal action, filed in Duval County, Florida, in March 2023, stemmed from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on November 30, 2022. Plaintiff Hajrudin Mesic brought suit against two Defendants: Mildre Roxana Florez Pernia, the individual who drove the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident, and Auto-Owners Insurance Company, which Mesic claimed provided him with Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM) coverage. The case, given the number 2023-CA-002117, centered on determining who was at fault for the crash and how much, if any, the Plaintiff should receive in compensation for his injuries.

Cause

The Complaint formally alleged that Defendant Mildre Pernia acted negligently when operating her motor vehicle, directly causing the collision with Mesic. Mesic asserted that Pernia failed to operate her vehicle with reasonable care, resulting in the accident. Because of this alleged negligence, Mesic’s legal team filed a direct claim against Pernia for her role in the crash. Simultaneously, Mesic filed a second claim against his own insurance carrier, Auto-Owners, based on the belief that Pernia either possessed insufficient insurance or no insurance at all to cover the full extent of his damages, triggering the need for his UM coverage.

Injury

Following the November 2022 collision, Mesic contended that he suffered serious, debilitating, and permanent bodily injuries. The Plaintiff claimed these injuries resulted in pain, suffering, disability, and disfigurement. The lawsuit specified that Mesic faced emotional distress, diminished ability to enjoy life, and incurred substantial expenses for current and future medical care, rehabilitation, and treatment. Furthermore, he claimed he sustained a permanent loss of income and the capacity to earn a living.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiff demanded financial compensation to cover the full scope of his injuries and losses. The total amount in controversy significantly surpassed the jurisdictional minimum of $50,000.00, exclusive of any attorney’s fees, costs, or interest. The lawsuit sought to recover damages from both the at-fault driver (Pernia) and the Plaintiff’s own insurance company (Auto-Owners) under the terms of the UM policy.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The case quickly became a two-front battle, first against the driver for negligence and second against the insurance company for benefits. The Defendant Auto-Owners filed its formal Answer and Affirmative Defenses in June 2023, strongly challenging the Plaintiff’s claims.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Hajrudin Mesic

· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Billie Jo Taylor | David Richard Black | Nicole Mikaelle Aleman Coutu

Defendant(s): Mildre Roxana Florez Pernia and Auto-Owners Insurance Company

· Counsel for Defendant(s): Michael P. Regan, Jr., Esq. | Brian M Guter

· Experts for Defendant(s): Eric Gabriel | David Turetsky | Ira Fox

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Counsel for Mesic asserted that the facts clearly demonstrated Pernia’s negligence as the sole cause of the collision, establishing her liability for all resulting damages. Against the insurance carrier, Mesic’s counsel argued that the company had a contractual duty to pay the full value of Mesic’s damages under the UM policy, given the severity of the permanent injuries he sustained and the other driver's lack of adequate coverage.

Defense

The counsel for Auto-Owners Insurance Company immediately mounted a vigorous defense, formally denying that Pernia’s actions were the cause of the accident. The insurance company's defense relied on several key arguments known as affirmative defenses.

Comparative Negligence: The defense claimed that if an accident occurred, Mesic bore some degree of responsibility, meaning the jury should assign a portion of the fault directly to him. This argument intended to reduce any potential damage award by the percentage of fault assigned to Mesic.

Failure to Mitigate Damages: The defense also asserted that Mesic failed to properly address or mitigate his claimed injuries. This suggested that Mesic had not sought reasonable or necessary medical care, thereby allowing his injuries and associated costs to worsen.

Collateral Source and Set-Off: Auto-Owners argued that it was entitled to several financial deductions from any potential jury award. This included a set-off for any Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits the company paid or owed. They also demanded a reduction based on the "collateral source" rule, meaning any payment Mesic received from other sources (like health insurance or Medicare) had to be deducted from the verdict to prevent Mesic from recovering duplicate payments. Finally, they sought set-offs for any contractual discounts Mesic’s medical providers offered to those other payors.

Jury Verdict

The jury on May 23rd, 2025 found in favor of the Plaintiff and awarded both economic (medical) and non‑economic damages for past and future losses.

Medical expenses

The jury determined that the November 30, 2022, motor vehicle collision caused the Plaintiff to incur a total of $ 82,825 in past medical expenses, covering treatment at several providers including Magnolia Medical Group, radiology, spine and orthopedic care, and surgery-related services. For future medical needs related to this collision, the jury awarded $ 287,616.50, which includes anticipated costs for pain management follow‑up, imaging, injections, and other interventional procedures.

Permanent injury finding

The jury expressly found that the Plaintiff sustained a permanent injury or a permanent aggravation of a pre‑existing condition within a reasonable degree of medical probability as a result of the November 30, 2022, crash. This “yes” finding on permanency is what allowed the jury to go on to award non‑economic damages for pain and suffering and related harms.

Pain and suffering and other non‑economic damages

For non‑economic damages pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and aggravation of a pre‑existing condition the jury awarded $ 36,500 for past losses. For future non‑economic losses, the jury awarded an additional $62,383.50 to compensate the Plaintiff for ongoing and anticipated impacts of the injuries.

Overall result

Adding these components, the total verdict in favor of the Plaintiff is $ 469,324 comprised of $ 82,825 (past medical), $ 287,616.50 (future medical), $36,500 (past non‑economic), and $62,383.50 (future non‑economic) damages. The verdict form is dated May 9, 2025 and is signed by the jury foreperson, confirming this as the final decision of the jury in the case.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com