DUANE DELEHANTY, APPELLANT,
v.
CORONET INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1993-04-30
No. 92-02925
LEHAN, C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
619 So. 2d 990 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1993)

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.


Holding

Plaintiff is entitled to PIP benefits to the extent that the worker's compensation lien depleted the settlement, plus attorney's fees and costs.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued his PIP carrier for benefits after settling with a tortfeasor and satisfying a worker's compensation lien. The trial court declined to …

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
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is another personal injury case involving multiple coverages of plaintiff by his employer’s worker’s compensation insurance, his own PIP insurance, and the tortfeasor’s liability insurance. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment in his suit for a declaration of what he should recover from his PIP carrier. As we said in Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Yadevia, 579 So. 2d 213, 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991),

On the authority of Fortune Ins. Co. v. McGhee, 571 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), we reverse. Under the circumstances of this case which are similar to those in McGhee, plaintiff is entitled to PIP benefits only to the extent that her “satisfaction of the [worker’s] compensation lien [on the proceeds of plaintiff’s settlement with the tortfeasor] depleted the amount of ... [her] ... settlement” with the tortfeasor, i.e., to the extent plaintiff paid the worker’s compensation carrier for the satisfaction of the worker’s compensation lien, “plus the amount of attorney’s fees and costs permitted by section 440.39(3)(a), Florida Statutes .” Id. at 548.

In this case the trial court erroneously declined to find that plaintiff was entitled to recover from his PIP carrier the above-referenced “amount of attorney’s fees and costs permitted by section 440.39(3)(a).”

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

LEHAN, C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw