LEONARD STEINER, SHELDON MUNACH, OSWALDO VALDES, MYRIAM CAPATI, HARRY SCHRIER AND EDUARDO DARCY, APPELLANTS,
v.
PHYSICIANS PROTECTIVE TRUST FUND, AN UNINCORPORATED BODY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1980-09-16
No. 80-114
Before HUBBART, NESBITT and BAS-KIN, JJ.
388 So. 2d 1064 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1980) Positive Treatment
Cited by 22 cases

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.

Synopsis

Physicians Protective Trust Fund distributed credit dividends to continuing members in the form of reduced 1978 premiums, but excluded former members who had withdrawn in 1976-1977. Former members appealed, arguing they were entitled to share in the dividends. The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that the trust agreement authorized premium reductions for continuing members and did not require distribution to withdrawn members.


Holding

The former members were not entitled to credits or refunds of premiums. The trust agreement's paragraph 15(m) expressly authorized the use of surplus funds to reduce premiums for succeeding years, and the dividend distribution to continuing members did not violate the trustees' fiduciary duty. Paragraph 14, which addresses distributions only upon dissolution, did not apply since the Trust Fund was not dissolved.


Headnotes

[1] A trust agreement's provisions regarding the distribution of funds upon dissolution do not preclude the use of those funds to reduce future premiums for continuing member…

[2] Courts will not rewrite a contract or substitute their judgment for that of the parties to relieve a party from the hardship of an improvident bargain.

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

Key Quotes

“All portions of the Loss Account and the Loss Leveling Reserve Account not used for the payment of losses, the purchase of excess insurance, or the allowable expenses or reserves in any one year, shall be credited to the Loss Account of the Loss Leveling Reserve Account for succeeding years. Such credits shall be used to reduce the premium for succeeding years as allowed by excess carriers and the Department of Insurance.”

Establishes the express contractual authorization for reducing premiums with surplus funds, the central provision supporting the court's decision.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Trust Fund was established to defend members against malpractice claims. Appellants were members in 1976-1977 and then withdrew. A low loss rate a…

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.


Opinion of the Court
NESBITT, Judge.

NESBITT, Judge.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, seek reversal of summary final judgment entered against them which denied their entitlement to dividends from the appellee, Physicians Protective Trust Fund (Trust Fund). We affirm the judgment.

The Trust Fund was established to defend and “pay all claims arising against the Members as a result of malpractice or negligence in the care and treatment of patients

The appellants were members during the years, 1976 and 1977, following which they withdrew from the Trust Fund. The low loss rate incurred by trust members enabled the Trust Fund to declare a credit “dividend” against the funds collected from the members during 1976 and 1977. The credit “dividend” was distributed only to members who renewed their coverage through December 31,1978. The credit “dividend” was in the form of a reduction in the premium for the remaining quarter of 1978. Such a reduction in premium was expressly authorized by the trust agreement in paragraph 15(m) which reads as follows:

(m) All portions of the Loss Account and the Loss Leveling Reserve Account not used for the payment of losses, the purchase of excess insurance, or the allowable expenses or reserves in any one year, shall be credited to the Loss Account of the Loss Leveling Reserve Account for succeeding years. Such credits shall be used to reduce the premium for succeeding years as allowed by excess carriers and the Department of Insurance. [emphasis added]

Appellants contend, and we agree, that a literal reading of paragraph 14 of the trust agreement provides for a distribution of dividends only in the event the Trust Fund is dissolved.1 Admittedly, the Trust Fund was not dissolved. Appellants also contend that the trustees are under a fundamental duty of loyalty to the beneficiaries of a trust to administer it only in the interest of the beneficiaries. Investors Syndicate of America, Inc. v. City of Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, 434 F. 2d 871 (5th Cir. 1970). They argue that this is especially true because of the provisions of paragraph 15(n) which provides:

(n) In the event of exhaustion of the Loss Account and the Loss Leveling Reserve Account in any one year, the Trustees’ Account will be used to provide funds as necessary. If the Trustees’ Account is also exhausted, the Members of the Trust Fund may be subject to assessment for losses reported in the policy year. Appellants argue that they are potentially subject to additional liability resulting from the depletion of the loss account resulting from the distribution of funds to reduce future premiums.

In affirming the trial judge’s ruling that the former members were not entitled to credits or refunds of premiums, we are not unmindful of equitable considerations. However, we also note that paragraph 15(g) of the trust agreement expressly provides:

(g) Notwithstanding any statement herein, liability of the Fund to the Members is specifically limited to such obligations as are set forth in the Indemnity Agreement attached hereto.

We observe that the Indemnity Agreement did not alter the provisions of paragraph 15(m), referred to above, by which members’ premiums were effectively reduced. We cannot and will not ignore the well settled rule that: •

[c]ourts may not rewrite a contract or interfere with the freedom of contract or substitute their judgment for that of the parties thereto in order to relieve one of the parties from the apparent hardship of an improvident bargain.

Beach Resort Hotel Corporation v. Wieder, 79 So. 2d 659, 663 (Fla.1955). Accord, Home Development Company of St. Petersburg v. Bursani, 178 So. 2d 113, 117 (Fla.1965); Simpson v. Young, 369 So. 2d 376, 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Accordingly, the summary final judgment in favor of the appellees is affirmed.

. 14. In the event of the dissolution of this Trust, whether voluntary or involuntary, the Trustees shall distribute the monies, securities, rights, or property then in the Trust to the Members of the Trust in that proportion that the Members of the Trust paid premiums to the Trustees at the last date upon which such pre-mlums were collected from each Member. Such payments shall only be made after the Trustees have satisfied the requirements of all appropriate Florida laws or rules or regulations of the Insurance Department of the State of Florida in providing for appropriate reserves and other funds necessary to comply therewith.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • The Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
    …he parties of its burdens. Such a result may no more be permitted in the case of an agreement of this kind than any other. Home Development Company of St. Petersburg v. Bursani, 178 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1965); Steiner v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 388 So. 2d 1064 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). Since Ms. Keller agreed not to work for a competitor after she left 24 Collection, she must be held to that undertaking. For these reasons, the judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enjoin the appel…
  • Contos v. Evalyn Lipsky, 433 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …l twenty-year encumbrance, fully binding on both parties, was in being as of 1962. We will not undo the lessors’ improvident contract. Tampa Drug Co. v. West Drug Stores, 112 Fla. 331, 150 So. 786 (1933); Steiner v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 388 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Florida Sportservice, Inc. v. City of Miami, 121 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Turning to the lessee’s cross-appeal, we reject her contention that the trial court erred in awarding interest to the lessors on the sale price as o…
  • Ball v. Fla. Podiatrist Tr., 620 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
    …t presume that the Legislature did not intend to require the payment of dividends to former members of medical malpractice risk management trust [*1023] funds. See 49 Fla.Jur.2d Statutes § 133 (1984). In Steiner v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 388 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 779 (Fla.1981), the court recognized that the obligations of a self-insurance trust fund to its members are limited to the insurance agreement between the parties. The indemnity agreement states in releva…

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw