STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., PETITIONER,
v.
FRANK E. MILLER, JR., RESPONDENT
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.
Florida's First District Court of Appeal quashed a county court decision awarding PIP benefits for lost wages offset by workers' compensation, holding that the correct statutory interpretation under section 627.736 requires a different calculation method.
Under section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2000), a PIP insurer's obligation to pay for lost wages must be calculated according to the statutory formula as interpreted in Diaz and Jorglewich, not by simply awarding a percentage of the difference between total lost wages and workers' compensation payments.
[1] Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2000), requires PIP insurers to calculate lost wage benefits according to the statutory formula established in Diaz v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent was injured in an automobile accident during the course of his employment and received 66-2/3% of his lost wages under workers' compensatio…
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 Offset Of Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Respondent, who was involved in an automobile accident that occurred during the course and scope of his employment, was paid 66-2/3 % of his lost wages under Florida’s workers’ compensation scheme. Thereafter, Respondent filed a claim with Petitioner for reimbursement under his personal injury protection (PIP) policy. Petitioner denied the' claim. The county court ordered Petitioner to pay 60 % of the difference between Respondent’s total lost wages and Respondent’s total workers’ compensation payments.
The circuit court affirmed. We grant the petition for writ of certiorari because both lower courts failed to correctly apply the applicable newer version of section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2000), as interpreted by the district courts in Diaz v. South Carolina Insurance Co., 397 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and Jorglewich v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 522 So. 2d 114, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Under these circumstances, certiorari review is proper pursuant to Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla.2003) (stating that an interpretation or application of a statute, a procedural rule, or a constitutional provision may be the basis for granting certiorari review).
Therefore, we QUASH the decision under review and grant the petition, WITH DIRECTIONS that the circuit court reverse the county court’s summary judgment and remand to the county court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ.. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wiggins, 920 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…circuit court departed from the essential require- [*1259] merits of law by not following the applicable statute, section 627.736(4), (8), and case law. We have jurisdiction and we should grant the writ. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 865 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (granting certiorari when the court did not correctly apply section 627.736); Ortega v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 847 So. 2d 994, 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (granting certiorari when the circuit court applied incorrect law in a PIP suit…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keely Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003)
- Starling Ross, S.A. v. Edilio Xavier de Oliveira, 397 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Jayne Jorglewich v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 522 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)