ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
PELAYO MAZORRA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal denied certiorari and affirmed that a PIP carrier must pay benefits even when covered expenses were paid through workers' compensation, provided the workers' compensation carrier was reimbursed through a third-party settlement lien satisfaction.
A PIP carrier must provide benefits for covered expenses paid through workers' compensation when the workers' compensation carrier has been reimbursed through the claimant's third-party settlement.
[1] A personal injury protection carrier must pay benefits for covered medical expenses paid through workers' compensation when the workers' compensation carrier has been rei…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMazorra incurred covered expenses that were paid through workers' compensation. The workers' compensation carrier's lien was satisfied and reimbursed …
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 Coordination Of Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The county court denied Mazorra p.i.p. benefits because the covered expenses had been paid through workers’ compensation, even though the comp, carrier had, in effect, been reimbursed by the claimant through the settlement and satisfaction of its lien on his recovery in a third-party case.
On appeal, the circuit court reversed on the authority of South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Arnold, 467 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), which, squarely to the contrary of the county court, awarded p.i.p. under identical circumstances. The p.i.p. carrier now seeks certiorari review of that reversal. Since it is undisputed that Arnold involved the identical legal question and that the second district is the only Florida court of appeal to have determined the issue, accord Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Yadevia, 579 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), review denied, 591 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1991); Fortune Ins. Co. v. McGhee, 571 So. 2d 546 (Fla, 2d DCA 1990), the circuit court had no choice but to follow Arnold. Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1992).
It therefore could not have departed from the “essential requirements of the law” in doing so.
Hence, certiorari might well be denied on this ground alone. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982).
In any case, however, this court is of course free to consider the issue as an original question. Pardo, 596 So. 2d at 665. On the merits, we completely agree with Arnold and therefore make it a part of the law of this district. See Comeau v. Safeco Ins. Co., 356 So. 2d 790 (Fla.1978); Longman v. Travelers Ins. Co., 371 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Omni Ins. Co. v. Special Care Clinic, Inc., 708 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…capacity, must follow the precedent of another district court of appeal where that court has decided the legal issue facing the circuit court and its own district court of appeal has not yet ruled on the issue. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mazorra, 599 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In Magnetic, the appellee contended that section 627.736(5) does not require “arbitration per se.” The Third District disagreed, holding that, “[arbitration is mandatory pursuant to section 627.736(5) even in the event that the i…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pressley, 28 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)….736(5)(d). Ms. Pressley countered that it was impractical to subject insureds to the requirements of these statutes, and she relied on South Carolina Insurance Co. v. Arnold, 467 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mazorra, 599 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), to support her argument that reimbursement of the health insurance lien was permissible under the PIP statute. The trial court agreed with Ms. Pressley that sections 627.736(5)(c)1 and 627.736(5)(d) applied to medical providers…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)
- Comeau v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am., 356 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1978)
- Fortune Ins. Co. v. McGHEE, 571 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- S.C. Ins. Co. v. Arnold, 467 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Longman v. Travelers Ins. Co., 371 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Marybeth Yadevia, 579 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)