DONALD R. THOMAS AND SHIRLEY THOMAS, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
REEVES SOUTHEASTERN CORP., APPELLEE
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.
Appellants are not entitled to interest on their settlement because the appellee is not an 'insurer' as defined by statute.
[1] An insurer must tender payment within 20 days of a settlement agreement or pay 12 percent annual interest from the date of the agreement.
[2] Interest on a settlement payment conditioned upon the execution of a release does not begin to accrue until the executed release is tendered to the insurer.
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 intelligenceAppellants and appellee reached a settlement in a personal injury action. The settlement was agreed to on June 6, 1984, but payment was not received u…
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.
FRANK, Judge.
The narrow issue in this matter is whether the appellants are entitled to interest on the amount of the settlement agreed to in resolution of their personal injury action. The appellants rely upon section 627.4265, Florida Statutes, in support of their claim to interest.
The pertinent facts are that on June 6, 1984, a settlement in the amount of $800,-000.00 was reached in open court between the appellants and the appellee. The money was not received by the appellants, however, until July 11, 1984. A motion to assess interest, based upon the foregoing statute, in the claimed amount of $8,942.34 was filed by the appellants and denied by the trial court. We affirm the trial court’s denial of interest.
The appellants’ reliance upon Sockolof v. Eden Point North Condominium, 421 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), is misplaced. Sockolof bears no relationship to the construction to be placed upon section 627.-4265. There is no dispute in the matter at hand that a bilaterally binding settlement was reached. The sole question is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of section 627.4265 which provides as follows:
In any case in which a person and an insurer have agreed in writing to the settlement of a claim, the insurer shall tender payment according to the terms of the agreement no later than 20 days after such settlement is reached. The tender of payment may be conditioned upon execution by such person of a release mutually agreeable to the insurer and the claimant, but if the payment is not tendered within 20 days, or such other date as the agreement may provide, it shall bear interest at a rate of 12 percent per year from the date of the agreement; however, if the tender of payment is conditioned upon the execution of a release, the interest shall not begin to accrue until the executed release is tendered to the insurer. We accord the statute its plain and obvious meaning. If the appellee is not an “insurer” within the statute’s meaning, the appellant cannot claim entitlement to its provisions. Section 624.03, Florida Statutes, defines the word “insurer” to include “every person engaged as indemnitor, surety, or contractor in the business of entering into contracts of insurance or of annuity.” The appellee does not fit the statutory concept of an “insurer.” Finally, the result we reach is not affected by the fact that the funds transmitted to the appellants in fulfillment of the settlement agreement originated with two insurance carriers. The source of that money does not transform the appellee into an “insurer.”
Affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.I.T. Aviation, Inc. v. Gleason, 510 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…t effective March 10, 1986, and thus Gleason was entitled to payment plus interest from that date. The appellants also contend that section 627.425 does not apply to them because they are not insurors. See Thomas v. Reeves Southeastern Corporation, 472 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We do not agree with that position because, unlike Thomas, here Charter American Insurance Company and Aviation Underwriting Specialists were parties to the release and settlement agreement. In addition, that section actually hel…
-
Kladke v. Phillips, 535 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…complicated statutory regulation of the insurance companies, the insurance business and insurance contracts in this state. Clearly, it has no application if an insurance company is not a party to the settlement. Thomas v. Reeves Southeastern Corp., 472 So. 2d 493 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). The inference (at best in this case) that an insurance company has, in fact, supplied the proceeds for the settlement payoff does not bring this statute into play. F.I.T. Aviation, Inc. v. Gleason, 510 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 19…
Authorities Cited
- Sockolof v. Eden Point N. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 421 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)