CHRISTOPHER M. GALANTE, APPELLANT,
v.
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA 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.
In this uninsured motorist insurance dispute, the insured settled with the tortfeasor's liability carrier for policy limits, used part of the settlement to satisfy a workers' compensation lien, then sued his own UM carrier for non-economic damages only and recovered $80,000. The court reversed the trial court's decision to set off the entire $25,000 settlement against the UM award, holding that the UM carrier failed to establish duplicative benefits when the UM claim was limited to non-economic damages while the settlement was undifferentiated.
The court held that the setoff was improper. Because the UM award was incontestably limited to non-economic losses only while the underlying settlement was undifferentiated as to economic and non-economic damages, and the jury was not asked to determine the full extent of economic losses, there is no way to establish whether the UM award duplicates benefits already recovered. A UM carrier seeking a setoff must affirmatively establish the fact of duplicative benefits, which the UM carrier failed to do here.
[1] A setoff against an uninsured motorist award is proper only where the award duplicates benefits already recovered from the tortfeasor's liability insurance.
[2] An uninsured motorist carrier seeking a setoff against an award must establish that the award duplicates benefits already recovered.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A UM carrier seeking such a setoff is required to establish the fact of duplicative benefits.”
Establishes the burden of proof on the UM carrier to affirmatively prove duplicative benefits before a setoff is allowed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received economic loss benefits from his workers' compensation carrier. He settled with the 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Setoff Of Settlement Proceeds cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
In this uninsured motorist (UM) case, the insured settled with the tortfeasor’s liability insurance carrier for policy limits of $25,000. Because the insured had received economic loss benefits from his workers compensation carrier, he used $10,000 of the settlement proceeds from the tortfeasor to settle with his workers compensation carrier who claimed a lien on any recovery he might get. He then sued his own UM carrier — but only for non-economic damages,
and a jury awarded $80,000. The UM carrier then moved to set off the entire $25,000 settlement against the UM award, and the trial court granted the motion in full. The insured now appeals, arguing that the setoff was improper under the unique facts and circumstances of this case. We agree.
Under Allstate Ins. Co. v. Morales, 533 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), and Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), a setoff against the UM award is proper where the UM award duplicates benefits already recovered from the tortfeasor’s liability insurance. This case differs from Morales because here the jury in the UM action was asked to consider only non-economic damages, while in Morales the jury was asked:
“to award the total amount of any damages sustained by Morales which were legally caused by the accident in question and which were not duplicated by benefits available from other sources.”
533 So. 2d at 952. Similarly, in Brewton there is nothing to suggest that the UM claim was particularized and limited as in this ease, and indeed Judge Kersey’s analysis impliedly assumes a UM case in which all damages are in issue.
In this ease, all of the benefits recovered from the workers compensation carrier went toward the insured’s economic losses. Admittedly, the settlement with the liability insurance carrier was undifferentiated, and must be deemed therefore to extend to both economic and non-economic losses. But the UM award was incontestably limited to non-economic losses only. The jury was not asked to decide, as in Morales and Brewton, the full extent of the insured’s economic losses along with his non-economic losses. Accordingly, we have no way of knowing whether the UM award duplicates benefits already recovered.
A UM carrier seeking such a setoff is required to establish the fact of duplicative benefits. See, § 627.727(1), Fla. Stat. (1991); and Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Langel, 587 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), Bergmann v. Sentry Ins., 422 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).2 Because the UM carrier in this case failed to establish that there was a duplication of benefits in the UM award, it was error to grant the setoff.
REVERSED.
STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur. . The jury was not asked to consider economic damages for medical expenses or lost wages.
. Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in part that:
“The coverage described under this section shall be over and above, but shall not duplicate, the benefits available to an insured under any workers' compensation law, personal injury protection benefits, disability benefits law, or similar law; under any automobile medical expense coverage; under any motor vehicle liability insurance coverage; or from the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle or any other person or organization jointly or severally liable together with such owner or operator for the accident; and such coverage shall cover the difference, if any, between the sum of such benefits and the damages sustained, up to the maximum amount of such coverage provided under this section. The amount of coverage available under this section shall not be reduced by a setoff against any coverage, including liability insurance.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Vecchio, 744 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…The motion was accompanied by a copy of Vecchio’s admission confirming that she had received $50,000.00 from Allstate on behalf of Eugene Saul. The trial court denied State Farm’s motion, citing as authority, Galante v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 695 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). A set-off against a UM award is only proper where the award duplicates benefits already recovered from the tort-feasor’s liability insurer. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Moher, 734 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Galant…1 / 2
-
Pate v. Renfroe, 715 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…been no offer of judgment, does not satisfy the clear language of the PIP set-off provision that the benefits have been “paid” or are “payable.” The purpose of a set-off is tu avoid duplication of benefits. See, e.g., Galante v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 695 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Piatt, 417 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). It is the burden of the party seeking the set-off to prove the existence of an actual duplication of benefits in fact. Galante, 695 So. 2d at 457. In Allstate Insura…
-
Allstate Ins. Co., Inc. v. Campbell, 842 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…is only entitled to this credit if the underinsured award duplicates the benefits recovered from the tortfeasor’s liability insurance. State Farm, Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Vecchio, 744 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Galante v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 695 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). [*1034] The Campbells argue that the credits should not apply here because the underin-sured jury award, which included only economic damages, did not duplicate the benefits contained in the Bosselman settlement, which represent…
Previewing 3 of 6 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. Brewton, 538 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Edward Langel & Joan Langel, 587 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Morales, 533 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Bergmann v. Sentry Ins., 422 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)