CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILIP CASTORA, JR., AND CAROL CASTORA, HIS WIFE, TODD FOPIANO, ROBERT FOPIANO, 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.
The trial court erred in considering the combined effects of two separate accidents when determining equitable distribution of a personal injury settlement under the workmen's compensation law.
An employee covered by appellant insurance was injured in a work-related accident and later in a separate, non-covered automobile accident. After sett…
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 Third Party Tortfeasor cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an appeal by a workmen’s compensation insurance carrier, Continental Insurance Company, from an order entered by the Circuit Court on equitable distribution of a personal injury settlement as provided by Section 440.39(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). The Circuit Court denied the carrier’s petition for equitable distribution of the plaintiff/worker’s recovery in his suit against a third party tortfeasor. We reverse.
The plaintiff/appellee sustained injuries in a work related accident in November, 1974, within the coverage of appellant, Continental Insurance Company. The appellee sustained additional injuries in a subsequent automobile accident in October, 1975, which was not within the insurance coverage of appellant.
The injured employee filed a suit to recover for personal injuries against a third party tortfeasor involved in the earlier accident. After a settlement of the claim against the third party tortfeasor, the trial court was called upon to determine equitable distribution under the workmen’s compensation law. In doing so, the trial court considered the combined effects of both accidents in concluding that the employee “did not recover the full value of damages sustained.” In considering the combined effects of both accidents, the trial court erred. The order on equitable distribution denying appellant any recovery whatsoever is vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the above-cited statute and this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jacoby, 505 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…very by the employee from a third party tortfeasor when the employee was injured by the third party tortfeasor while not in the course of his employment. We do not agree with appellant’s apparent argument that Continental Insurance Co. v. Castora, 385 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), says otherwise. It is true that in Castora the carrier’s subrogation rights were not allowed to be reduced by reason of an accident to the employee which was not in the course of his employment. But that case, in contrast to the…