MODESTO DILME, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
SBP SERVICE, INC. AND FIRST SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY/THE FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, APPELLEES
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 reversed a workers' compensation judge's determination that the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) bore no responsibility for paying an injured worker's attorney's fees. The court held that FIGA, as the statutory successor to an insolvent insurer, must pay attorney's fees awarded under workers' compensation law regardless of whether FIGA took affirmative action denying the claim.
FIGA is responsible for paying attorney's fees awarded under workers' compensation law as part of a covered claim. Section 631.70 does not limit attorney's fees liability under section 440.34, and FIGA's failure to take affirmative action does not relieve it of this obligation.
[1] The Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) is obligated to pay attorney's fees awarded to a workers' compensation claimant as part of a covered claim.
[2] FIGA's obligation to pay attorney's fees in workers' compensation cases is not limited by the affirmative denial requirement found in section 631.70, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Section 631.57(l)(b) provides that FIGA shall be "deemed the insurer to the extent of its obligation on the covered claims, and, to such extent, shall have all rights, duties, and obligations of the insolvent insurer as if the insurer had not become insolvent.”
Establishes that FIGA succeeds to all obligations of the insolvent insurer, including attorney's fees liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter the claimant filed a workers' compensation claim, the employer's insurance carrier was placed in receivership. FIGA was assigned to defend the c…
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 Covered Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
We have for review a workers’ compensation order in which the judge of compensation claims determined that Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) had no responsibility to pay the claimant’s attorney’s fees. We reverse.
Subsequent to the filing of a claim for benefits by the claimant, the employer’s carrier was placed in receivership. FIGA was then assigned the defense of the claim on behalf of the bankrupt carrier. FIGA’s only involvement was to appear at final argument on the issue of claimant’s entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees. The judge of compensation claims ruled that FIGA was not responsible for payment of attorney’s fees because there was no denial of the claim by affirmative action on the part of FIGA. The judge of compensation claims specifically relied upon section 631.70, Florida Statutes.
Section 631.70, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the “provisions of s. 627.428 providing for an attorney’s fee shall not be applicable to any claim presented to the association under the provisions of this part, except when the association denies by affirmative action, other than delay, a covered claim or a portion thereof.” FIGA’s argument that section 631.70 applies to an award of attorney’s fees under section 440.34, Florida Statutes, is without merit. Liability for' attorney’s fees under section 440.34 is unaffected by section 631.70. See Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. Gustinger, 390 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
The fact that FIGA took no affirmative action in the handling of the claim is irrelevant. Section 631.57(l)(a) provides that FIGA shall be obligated to the extent of the covered claims and shall pay the full amount of any covered claim arising out of a workers’ compensation policy. Section 631.57(l)(b) provides that FIGA shall be “deemed the insurer to the extent of its obligation on the covered claims, and, to such extent, shall have all rights, duties, and obligations of the insolvent insurer as if the insurer had not become insolvent. In no event shall the association be liable for any penalties or interest.” An award of attorney’s fees to a workers’ compensation claimant is part of a covered claim for which FIGA may be responsible. Gustinger. An award of attorney’s fees is neither a penalty nor outside the scope of the policy. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. Renfroe, 568 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So. 2d 1308 (Fla.1991). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Westphal v. City OF ST. Petersburg/City OF ST. Petersburg Risk Mgmt., 122 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…trary ruling”) (em-(emin original). It is not the function of the appellate court to reweigh the evi-evibefore the JCC, even if we think the JCC should have accepted the testimony of one witness over the other. See Fla. Min-Min& Materials v. Mobley, 649 So. 2d 934, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (rejecting argu-arguthat this court should undertake an independent review of the medical evi-evibecause “the case may not be re-reon appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evi-eviwill be upheld eve…
-
Johnson v. Martin Paving & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 659 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…e employment. Although this court is not disadvantaged in reviewing the medical depositions, the resolution of any conflicts therein remains within the fact-finding authority of the judge of compensation claims. Florida Mining & Materials v. Mobley, 649 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). This court will thus defer to the judge’s ruling insofar as it is supported by competent substantial evidence. Florida Mining. Such deference encompasses permissible interpretations of the evidence, and inferences properly deriv…
-
Frederick v. United Airlines & Alexsis, Inc., 688 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…sized that its proper appellate function does not include the factfinding function of the lower tribunal. More recently, this court has repeatedly reaffirmed its proper appellate role in such circumstances. In Florida Mining and Materials v. Mobley, 649 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the court rejected the suggestion that it undertake an independent review of the medical evidence presented by deposition in a workers’ compensation case: ... [T]he case may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is suppo…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Gustinger, 390 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Weisfeld v. William S. Cassel, Weisman, Douglas & Cassel, P.A., 568 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Session v. State, 568 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)