MARCUS MARGIOTTA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that an insurer cannot deny attorney's fees for a PIP claim solely based on unsupported conflicting claims, especially when the insurer failed to act appropriately.
[1] An insured is entitled to direct the allocation of their PIP benefits to maximize the available amount.
[2] An insurer cannot refuse to pay PIP benefits based on unsubstantiated conflicting claims from a hospital.
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 intelligenceAn insured injured in an accident requested PIP benefits for lost wages, but the insurer paid the hospital instead. After the insured filed suit, the …
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 Insurance Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
The insured appeals a denial of attorney’s fees which he sought after filing suit to collect PIP benefits. We reverse.
The insured was injured on April 24, 1990 and hospitalized for two weeks. He submitted an application for PIP benefits to State Farm, and instructed State Farm that it should apply his PIP benefits to his lost wages, not his medical expenses, which were covered by other insurance. Holloway v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 370 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (an insured is entitled to have PIP benefits allotted in such a manner as to make the maximum amount available).
State Farm refused to pay the insured’s request for lost wage benefits and instead issued a check payable only to the hospital. That check was returned to State Farm. In September of 1990 the insured again demanded payment without success. In November of 1990 the insured filed suit. State Farm then paid the claim, and convinced the trial court it should not have to pay attorney’s fees because there were conflicting claims by the insured and the hospital.
The trial court’s conclusion that there were conflicting claims is not supported by the record. There was no hospital lien nor any evidence that the hospital had made a claim for the PIP benefits. Moreover, even if there had been competing claims by the hospital and the insured, the insurer was not entitled to simply do nothing. It should have issued a joint check to the hospital and the insured or interpleaded the funds. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 512 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
The trial court relied on Crotts v. Bankers and Shippers Ins. Co. of New York, 476 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); however, we find that case distinguishable. There, when met with the competing claims of the hospital and the insured, the insurer promptly responded by forwarding a draft of the remaining benefits payable jointly to the insured and the hospital before the insured filed suit.
We therefore reverse the order denying the insured’s claim for attorney’s fees.
Reversed.
GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crooks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 659 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…le otherwise would render the recently enacted “no-fault” insurance statute a “no-pay” plan — a result we are sure was not intended by the legislature. Dunmore, 301 So. 2d at 502 (emphasis added); accord Margiotta v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 622 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 512 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). By attempting to create an exception to this section, the court erroneously ignored the plain meaning and intent of Section 627.736(4)(b), which is to…
-
Howell-Demarest v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 673 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…nsurance Co. v. Chacon, 385 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (merely affirming on authority of Holloway); Bennett v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 580 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Margiotta v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 622 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The trial court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment, and although the court did not set forth its reasoning, it appears, based on the arguments made at the hearing, that the court concluded that the allegations aga…
-
Logue v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co. & Herbert Koltun, 777 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…pinion in place of our previously issued slip opinion, Logue v. Clarendon National Insurance Company and Herbert Koltun, No. 4D00-593, 2000 WL 1781388 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec.6, 2000). This correction is to clarify our analysis of Margiotta v. State Farm, 622 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), contained in the last paragraph of page two of the slip opinion. Anthony Logue appeals from a final judgment following a bench trial involving his suit against his automobile insurer, Clarendon National Insurance Company, for b…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Lazara E. Gonzalez, 512 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Holloway v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 370 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Crotts v. Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 476 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)