FIREMAN'S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES L. PHILLIPS AND LOIS C. PHILLIPS, HIS WIFE, ET AL., 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.
Fireman's Insurance Company appealed a trial court's determination of its equitable lien in a workers' compensation subrogation case, challenging both the trial judge's application of a mathematical formula and the factual findings underlying the lien calculation. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and sufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's award of $2,663.38.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the National Ben Franklin formula to calculate equitable distribution, and the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court's factual findings. The determination of equitable distribution rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent an abuse of that discretion, the award will not be disturbed on appeal.
[1] The determination of the amount of an equitable distribution for a workers' compensation lien rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by applying a recognized formula to determine equitable distribution when counsel does not object.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 determination of the amount of an equitable distribution rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Establishes the standard of review for equitable lien awards and explains why the trial court's discretionary determination will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Phillips, an employee of Central Bank and Trust Company, slipped on a cigarette on the bank's premises and was injured. Fireman's, the bank's wo…
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 Full Value Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Fireman’s Insurance Company of Newark, workmen’s compensation carrier, appeals a final order finding that its equitable distribution amounted to $2,663.38.
James Phillips, while in the employ of Central Bank and Trust Company, was injured when he slipped on a cigarette on the bank’s premises. For the injury arising out of his employment, Fireman’s, the bank’s compensation carrier, paid Phillips a total of $19,633.70. Subsequently, Phillips sued Central Bank and the case was settled for $30,000. Fireman’s filed a notice of lien and petitioned for equitable distribution. At a hearing thereon, counsel for Central Bank testified that the case was worth between $120,000 and $150,000 and Phillips was approximately 75% negligent, in that he testified he had seen the cigarette first prior to stepping on it, resulting in the $30,000 settlement. The trial judge determined that the full value of the damages was $130,000 and that Phillips was comparatively negligent. The judge then applied the formula as set out in National Ben Franklin Ins. Co. v. Hall, 340 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) and awarded Fireman’s $2,663.38. Fireman’s appeals this award and alleges (1) that the judge failed to exercise his discretion in that he simply applied the formula approved in National Ben Franklin Ins. Co., supra, and (2) the evidence at the hearing was legally insufficient to support the determination of the trial judge as to the full value of damages (i. e. $130,000) and the comparative negligence on the part of Phillips.
The determination of the amount of an equitable distribution rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Williams, 356 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in deciding to apply the formula set out in National Ben Franklin Insurance Company v. Hall, supra. In fact, counsel for Fireman’s did not object when the trial judge applied the formula and determined thereunder that Fireman’s was entitled to $2,667.38.
With regard to the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, the record demonstrates to the contrary. The testimony of counsel for Central Bank and Phillips is sufficient to support the determination as to the full value of the case and Phillips’ comparative negligence. Thus, the determination of the amount of the equitable lien based upon these factual findings should not be disturbed on appeal. Zurich Insurance Company v. Renton, 189 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. Risk Mgmt., Inc., 409 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…igence or whether, if either is shown to any degree, “all bets are off’ and the court may then make an “equitable distribution” of the proceeds. The fact that the latter was the rule under the “50% statute,” Fireman’s Ins. Co. of Newark v. Phillips, 368 So. 2d 98 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); National Ben Franklin Ins. Co. v. Hall, 340 So. 2d 1269 (Fla.4th DCA 1976), may not be determinative since the present provision is significantly different both in letter and spirit.…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Taddia, 378 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…. The order on petition for equitable distribution is reversed and the cause remanded for further consideration in light of this opinion, the requirements of the statute and caselaw authority. See, Fireman’s Insurance Company of Newark v. Phillips, 368 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Williams, 356 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); National Ben Franklin Insurance Company v. Hall, 340 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The court may in its discretion permit the parties an opportun…
-
Pantry Pride & Crawford & Co. v. Hayes, 477 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ss than the full amount of damages incurred. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Jacobs, 402 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1982); State v. Caldwell, 388 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Fireman’s Insurance Co. v. Phillips, 368 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); §§ 90.703, 90.704, Fla.Stat. (1983); § 440.39(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1975); cf. Hewitt, Coleman & Associates v. Lymas, 460 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review denied, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1985) (argument of appellee’s counsel, witho…
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l BEN Franklin Ins. Co. v. Grover Hall, 340 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Zurich Ins. Co. v. Renton, 189 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 356 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. The Est. of Dianne C. Plute, 356 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)