DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHIGAN MUTUAL LIABILITY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Dade County appealed a judgment in favor of Michigan Mutual Liability Company, the subrogated workers' compensation carrier seeking to recover benefits it paid to an injured employee. The court held that a settlement between the tort-feasor and the injured worker, made with knowledge of the compensation carrier's subrogation rights, does not bar the carrier's subrogation claim.
The court held that the compensation carrier's subrogation rights were not barred by the settlement and release. A settlement made with knowledge that the injured worker did not own the entire claim of action is ineffective to bar the subrogation rights of the compensation insurance carrier.
“the settlement made with knowledge that Mr. Gall did not own his entire claim of action was ineffective”
Establishes the holding that settlements made with knowledge of subrogation rights cannot bar the compensation carrier's claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElisha N. Gall was injured through the negligence of a Dade County employee in an automobile collision. Gall received workers' compensation benefits. …
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 Subrogation cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal presents two questions, which must be discussed separately. First, was negligence proved? It is only necessary, upon this question, to report that we have examined the record and find no error in the ruling of the trial judge that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff was sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion for directed verdict.
The second question requires a statement of procedural facts. This action arose out of an automobile collision in which Elisha N, Gall was injured through the negligence of an employee of the appellant, Dade County. Mr. Gall received workmen’s compensation benefits. The liability carrier for the defendant settled the individual claim of Mr. Gall within the first year after the accident; also, it knew about and was attempting to settle the subrogated compensation carrier’s claim at that time. When the two insurance companies could not agree the liability carrier settled with Mr. Gall.
After the expiration of one year from the date of the accident, the Michigan Mutual Ins. Co., the subrogated compensation carrier, filed suit under section 440.39(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., as it existed in 1958. This is the identical section considered in Dickerson v. Orange State Oil Company, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 562 and Russell v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Company, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 161.
The question presented is whether, under the statute above referred to, the release given by the injured person pursuant to a settlement made by the tort-feasor with knowledge of the subrogated claim of the compensation carrier for compensation already paid, bars the subrogation rights of the compensation carrier. We hold that the compensation carrier was not barred.
In Russell v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Company, supra, the question for determination was stated:
“The sole question for determination by this court is whether under the statute in effect at the time of this transaction, a settlement by a third party tort-feasor with the injured person, and the execution of release by the injured person prior to the payment of compensation benefits to him barred the subrogation rights of the compensation carrier. * * *.” [128 So.2d 163].
In that case the settlement was prior to the payment of compensation and there is no suggestion that the settlement was made by the tort-feasor with knowledge that there would be subrogation of rights. The reasoning of the Russell case is that the right the compensation carrier claimed came into being after the settlement without knowledge to the tort-feasor and that it could not attach to a right of action which was already extinguished. In the instant case the settlement was with knowledge and the tort-feasor cannot ignore the rights of the compensation insurance carrier.
Therefore the settlement made with knowledge that Mr. Gall did not own his entire claim of action was ineffective. See Dickerson v. Orange State Oil Company, supra.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., concurs.
*113CARROLL, CHAS., J., concurs specially.
(concurring specially).
I concur in the judgment, on the authority of the holding in Dickerson v. Orange State Oil Company, Fla.App. 1960, 123 So.2d 562, 572.
CARROLL, CHAS., Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the judgment, on the authority of the holding in Dickerson v. Orange State Oil Company, Fla.App. 1960, 123 So. 2d 562, 572.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cook Motor Co. v. Vaughn, 189 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…LL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. . Dickerson v. Orange State Oil Company, 123 So. 2d 562 (Fla.App.2d, 1960); Russell v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Company, 128 So. 2d 161 (Ma.App.3d, 1961); and Dade County v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company, 130 So. 2d 111 (Fla.App.3d, 1961). . Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Bedingfield, 60 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1952). . Sweat v. Allen, 145 Fla. 733, 200 So. 348 (1941). . Dickerson v. Orange State Oil Company, 123 So. 2d 562 (Fla.App.2d, 1960). . Dade County v. Mich…1 / 2
-
Md. Cas. Co. v. Simmons, 193 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…this situation, can elect to sue the third party to enforce its rights of subrogation pursuant to Section 440.39(4). Dickerson v. Orange State Oil Company, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 562; Dade County v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 111. We believe, however, that Section 440.39 contemplates the filing of one suit only against the third party tortfeasor. Section 440.39(4), Fla.Stats., F.S.A.; Cook Motor Company v. Vaughn, supra. If the carrier has been notified of the employee’s su…
-
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 190 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)…table distribution of the settlement proceeds. The trial court’s decision is contrary to the rule established in Dickerson v. Orange State Oil Company, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 562, and Dade County v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 111. Defendant urges that both the Dickerson case and the Dade County case were decided on the basis of F.S.A. § 440.39 as it existed prior to the 1959 amendment and that the proper construction of the 1959 amendment, F.S.A. § 440.39(3) (b) limits a co…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dickerson v. Orange State OIL Co., 123 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Russell v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 128 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)