REGINA SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF LEONARDO CUTLER AND DEBRA CUTLER, 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.
Regina Smith appeals summary judgment on liability entered against her in a subrogation action brought by State Farm Insurance after a car accident. The court affirms the summary judgment on liability but remands for consideration of damages, noting that Smith is entitled to a credit for amounts State Farm already recovered from the other tortfeasor in settlement.
The court affirmed the summary judgment on liability against Smith. Although the settlement with Suero does not discharge Smith from the action, Smith is entitled to a credit for amounts State Farm recovered from Suero in settlement, which must be considered when calculating damages on remand.
[1] A settlement agreement with one joint tortfeasor does not discharge other joint tortfeasors from liability.
[2] A defendant is entitled to a credit for amounts paid to the claimant in settlement by another party.
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 intelligence“We affirm the summary judgment on liability, Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966), as we are unpersuaded by Smith's argument that the settlement agreement between Suero and State Farm operated to discharge Smith from the action.”
Establishes that settlement with one tortfeasor does not discharge another tortfeasor under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLuisa Maria Suero was driving Regina Smith's car with Smith's consent when she collided with Leonardo Cutler's vehicle. State Farm, Cutler's insurer, …
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 Settlement Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Regina Smith appeals an adverse summary judgment on liability. We affirm.
Luisa Maria Suero was driving Smith’s car when she collided with Leonardo Cutler’s car. Cutler was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. State Farm paid Cutler’s claim of $28,500 and brought an action against Smith and Suero as Cutler’s subrogee. State Farm entered into a settlement agreement with Suero for $28,500, plus $201 in court costs, to be paid in installments. The court entered judgment against Suero based on the settlement.
Relying on Smith’s interrogatory answers, which admitted that Suero was driving the car with Smith’s consent, and admitted that Suero negligently caused the accident, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment on liability. The court granted the motion and entered summary judgment against Smith for liability.
We affirm the summary judgment on liability, Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966), as we are unpersuaded by Smith’s argument that the settlement agreement between Suero and State Farm operated to discharge Smith from the action. See § 768.041(1), Fla.Stat (1995); Sun First Nat’l Bank v. Batchelor, 321 So. 2d 73 (Fla.1975)(abolishing common law rule that discharge of one tortfeasor discharges all joint tortfeasors encourages settlements); see also JFK Medical Ctr., Inc. v. Price, 647 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1994).
Although we do not endorse Smith’s argument that the settlement agreement entitles her to a dismissal of the action, Smith correctly asserts that State Farm has already recovered its full damages from Suero. During oral argument State Farm acknowledged that it is not seeking any damages beyond the amount it paid its subrogor. On remand, in considering the damages issue, we note that Smith is entitled “to a credit for any amounts paid to the claimant in settle-ment_” Baudo v. Bon Secours Hosp./Villa Maria Nursing Ctr., 684 So. 2d 211, 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see § 768.041(2), Fla. Stat. (1995)(court shall set off any amount received in satisfaction of damages). Thus, as this court stated in Baudo, although Smith is not entitled to a dismissal, she is entitled to a credit. Baudo, 684 So. 2d at 214. In addressing the damages issue, we are confident the trial court will bear in mind State Farm’s settlement agreement with Suero and consider what impact it has on State Farm’s ability to recover damages from Smith.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.R. Brooks & SON, Inc. v. Quiroz, 707 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…Florida Statutes (1995), which, as confirmed by the decided cases, require a complete set off as to amounts received from the active tortfeasor. See JFK Medical Ctr., Inc. v. Price, 647 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1994); Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 691 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Hertz Corp. v. Hellens, 140 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)(section 54.28, predecessor to section 768.041 providing for set off, applies to vicarious tortfeasors); see also De Los Santos: Where an individual’s liability is solely v…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- JFK Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Price, 647 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1994)
- SUN First Nat'l Bank OF Melbourne v. Lael N. Batchelor, 321 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1975)
- Baudo v. BON Secours Hospital/Villa Maria Nursing Ctr., 684 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)