SANDRA DOMINGUEZ,
v.
CRUISE HOLDINGS, A/K/A DOLPHIN CRUISE LINES, AND RELIANCE INSURANCE CO., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Settlement Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, J.
The judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred by failing to give effect to the settlement agreement, wherein the parties agreed that claimant’s attorney was entitled to a fee based upon the $7,500 lump-sum settlement. See Santiago v. Marriott Cas. Claims, 776 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The JCC is directed on remand to consider the $7,500 settlement in making the fee award. In so doing, the JCC should assess the parties’ contrary interpretations of the settlement provision, taking additional evidence if necessary, and then make a finding as to whether the fee should be based upon the hours expended, as urged by claimant, or whether it should be the statutory amount, as argued by appellees.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacobsen v. Ross Stores & Sedgwick Claims, 882 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…jurisdiction to construe); see also Frix v. All State Ins. & ITT, 854 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding JCC has authority and jurisdiction to impose sanctions for late payment of a settlement between the parties); Dominguez v. Cruise Holdings, 814 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding JCC erred by failing to give effect to parties’ settlement agreement; on remand, JCC directed to assess parties’ contrary interpretations of settlement provision). Where terms of a washout settlement conflict with other…
Authorities Cited
- Santiago v. Marriott Cas. Claims & Courtyard by Marriott OIA, 776 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)