Case Law Update: Progressive Select v. Reinberger — Second DCA Strikes $230,000 in Future Medical Expenses

On September 18, 2026, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal struck a $230,000 jury award for future medical expenses in a first-party uninsured motorist case, holding that a life care plan built on what a claimant “may” or “could” need is not evidence that those costs are reasonably certain to be incurred. The case is Progressive Select Insurance Company v. Reinberger, No. 2D2024-2657 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 18, 2026), an appeal from a final judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Pasco County (Judge Kimberly Sharpe Byrd). The panel affirmed the judgment in all other respects — including $1,190,000 in future noneconomic damages — and remanded with instructions to strike only the future-medical portion.

What happened

Marrietta Reinberger sued her own carrier, Progressive Select, for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits after a December 24, 2019 automobile accident. Progressive denied liability, causation, permanency, and damages.

To prove future medical costs, Reinberger presented a life care planner, Dr. Kevin Smith, who is board certified in occupational and preventative medicine. His plan totaled $233,478 — $103,716 in future provider visits, $60,318 in future procedures, $14,254 in diagnostic studies, and $4,800 for a TENS unit. According to the opinion, Dr. Smith did not physically examine Reinberger, never spoke with a surgeon about potential future surgery, did not know her providers’ current treatment recommendations, and acknowledged he did not think he had her complete medical history.

Two other witnesses undercut the plan. Reinberger’s treating physician’s assistant testified that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, he planned to treat her solely with medication management, that it was “very doubtful” he would recommend further injections, and that he did not anticipate she would undergo a previously recommended radiofrequency ablation. Reinberger herself testified she was not willing to have the ablation, had no plans for physical therapy, and did not plan to undergo further injections, explaining she was tired of being “poked and prodded.”

The trial court denied Progressive’s motion for directed verdict on future damages, reasoning that because Reinberger conceded she could change her mind, the question belonged to the jury. The jury found the uninsured driver 90% liable and Reinberger 10% liable, and awarded $230,000 in future medical expenses.

What the Second DCA held

Reviewing de novo, the panel (Morris, J., joined by LaBrit, J.) reversed as to future medical expenses other than medication. The court restated the settled rule that “[w]here a plaintiff seeks damages for future medical expenses, only medical expenses that are reasonably certain to be incurred in the future are recoverable,” quoting GEICO Indemnity Co. v. DeGrandchamp, 102 So. 3d 685, 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), and that “[a] mere possibility that certain treatment might be obtained in the future cannot form the basis of an award of future medical expenses,” quoting Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So. 3d 805, 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Applied to this record, the court wrote that Dr. Smith’s “testimony was replete with the words ‘may,’ ‘could,’ and ‘if,’” and that his blanket agreement that every item was included within a reasonable degree of medical certainty “is not dispositive.” The panel’s core sentence: “Something that is based on a possibility cannot be reasonably certain to occur.”

Progressive conceded that competent, substantial evidence supported $17,850 in future medication costs, and that portion stands. The court declined Progressive’s request to also reverse the noneconomic award. Judge Atkinson concurred in part and dissented in part, writing that he would also have found error in admitting the life care planner’s testimony at all, citing Anderson-Moody v. Wilson, 357 So. 3d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023), for the point that life care planners rely on treating physicians and disclosed medical experts rather than supplying the underlying medical opinion themselves.

The opinion is marked subject to revision prior to official publication.

What this means if you have a first-party insurance claim

This is a damages-proof decision, and its reach is broader than uninsured motorist cases — the same “reasonably certain” standard governs future medical expenses whenever a Florida claimant seeks them.

• A life care plan is not self-proving. Under Reinberger, a planner’s cost table can be reversed on appeal where the items rest on contingencies rather than on a treating provider’s current recommendation.
• Your own testimony is evidence. Saying in deposition or at trial that you do not intend to have a recommended procedure can be read against the claim that the procedure is reasonably certain to happen. That is a reason to answer such questions carefully and accurately with counsel’s guidance, not a reason to overstate future plans.
• Treating-provider testimony carries weight. Here the physician’s assistant’s plan to use medication management only was one of the facts the panel relied on. Where future care is genuinely expected, it generally needs to come from the people actually treating you.
• Uncontested categories can survive. The medication component was conceded and left intact, which shows that a well-supported subset of future costs can hold up even when the rest does not.

Nothing here predicts any result in any other case; every claim turns on its own record and its own medical evidence. Court opinions can also be revised or reheard.

Talk to someone about your claim

If your insurance company has denied, delayed, or underpaid a claim, Louis Law Group offers a free case evaluation. Call (833) 457-4636 or visit our Case Law & Industry Insights page for more rulings we are tracking.

Posted September 21, 2026. This article summarizes a public court opinion and is general information, not legal advice.