LUBY CHEVROLET, INC. AND FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, APPELLANTS,
v.
ORIS V. FOSTER, NATHANIEL WHITLEY AND ARTHUR THOMPSON, APPELLEES
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.
A workers' compensation carrier sought reimbursement from an injured employee's third-party recovery under Florida Statute Section 440.39(3). The trial court awarded the carrier $600 from a $10,000 jury verdict, and the carrier appealed, arguing it should receive full reimbursement of benefits paid minus litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed, holding that trial courts have broad discretion in determining equitable distribution regardless of jury verdict amounts.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $600 rather than full reimbursement. Trial courts possess broad discretionary power in determining equitable distribution under Section 440.39(3), and the rendition of a jury verdict does not limit or affect this discretion. Each case must turn on its particular facts and circumstances.
“Supreme Court of Florida indicated, in the case of Arex Indemnity Company v. Radin, supra [Fla., 72 So. 2d 393], that there could be no mathematical formula for the determination of an equitable distribution in accordance with the statute, and that each case must turn on its particular facts and circumstances.”
Establishes that equitable distribution has no fixed formula and depends on case-specific facts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOris V. Foster was injured in the course of his employment and received workers' compensation benefits from appellants Luby Chevrolet and Fidelity & C…
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 Petition For Equitable Distribution cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee, Oris V. Foster, was injured in the course of his employment and received workmen’s compensation benefits from appellants. Suit for damages was filed, and after a jury trial he received a final judgment in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars.
Appellants had filed their notice of lien and after a hearing, the trial court entered an order allowing appellants the sum of Six Hundred Dollars on the petition for equitable distribution under Section 440.39 (3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Appellants seek review of this award. No testimony was transcribed and this appeal is based on conflicting summaries of the parties.
Appellants’ contention is that Foster recovered a jury verdict of Ten Thousand Dollars, as a full recovery for his damages, and that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to allow full reimbursement, less expenses attendant to prosecuting the third party claim (attorney’s fees and costs).
In the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Harb, Fla.App.1964, 170 So.2d 54, this court upheld the discretion of the trial court, under Section 440.-*51139(3), in failing to award the compensation carrier any amount whatsoever on its petition for equitable distribution, although plaintiff had recovered a jury verdict. It cited with approval Baughman v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 694, wherein the Supreme Court of Florida approved an award under Section 440.39(3) of reimbursement in full (less expenses) to the compensation carrier of the amounts it had paid to the injured employee. A jury verdict had been recovered therein, also. The court in Harb, supra, stated as follows:
******
tí * * * Supreme Court of Florida indicated, in the case of Arex Indemnity Company v. Radin, supra [Fla., 72 So.2d 393], that there could be no mathematical formula for the determination of an equitable distribution in accordance with the statute, and that each case must turn on its particular facts and circumstances.” (Emphasis added.)
******
The recent case of Security Mutual Casualty Company v. Grice, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 834, involved a similar question. There a jury verdict of $25,000 was returned for the plaintiff. The carrier claimed that since the plaintiff had recovered full and complete damages as determined by a jury and since the recovery exceeded the amounts paid or to be paid, the trial court erred in failing to award full reimbursement of the benefits paid and to be paid. The court determined the question contrary to this position and said :
******
“ * * * it is apparent that the appellant’s right arises solely by virtue of the statute, Section 440.39(3) (a), and its right is subject to such equitable distribution of the amount recovered as the Court may determine. Such statute provides a broad discretion to be exercised by the trial judge upon equitable considerations. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Mc-Nair, supra. [Fla.App., 152 So.2d 805],
“If an equitable distribution is not to be permitted in cases such as this, it is a subject for legislative and not judicial determination. See Arex Indemnity Co. v. Radin, supra, and Shelby Mutual Insurance Company v. Russell, Fla.1962, 137 So.2d 219, 222.”
* * * * * *
Under these authorities there is no question that the rendition of a jury verdict has no effect upon the discretionary power of the trial judge in making an equiable distribution under the statute. The appellants have failed to show an abuse of discretion in the amount awarded by the trial judge, and for the reasons stated, the order is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Florentine Reyes v. Leonard L. Banks, 292 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…222 So. 2d 768 (Fla.App. 1969); Reznick v. Schwartz, 219 So. 2d 713 (Fla. App.1969); Zurich Insurance Co. v. Renton, 189 So. 2d 492 (Fla.App. 1966); Security Mutual Casualty Co. v. Grice, 172 So. 2d 834 (Fla.App.1965); Luby Chevrolet Inc. v. Foster, 177 So. 2d 510 (Fla.App.1965); Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. McNair, 152 So. 2d 805 (Fla.App.1963); McAdams v. Armored Car Service of Florida, 139 So. 2d 435 (Fla.App. 1962); Arex Indemnity Co. v. Radin, 72 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1954). It has been urged by the F…
-
White v. Reserve Ins. Co., 299 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…222 So. 2d 768 (Fla.App.1969); Reznick v. Schwartz, 219 So. 2d 713 (Fla.App. 1969); Zurich Insurance Co. v. Renton, 189 So. 2d 492 (Fla.App. 1966); Security Mutual Casualty Co. v. Grice, 172 So. 2d 834 (Fla.App.1965); Luby Chevrolet, Inc. v. Foster, 177 So. 2d 510 (Fla.App. 1965); Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. McNair, 152 So. 2d 805 (Fla.App. 1963); McAdams v. Armored Car Serv ice of Florida, 139 So. 2d 435 (Fla.App. 1962); Arex Indemnity Co. v. Radin, 72 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1954). “It has been urged by t…
-
Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roth, 222 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…demnity Company v. Radin, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 393; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Harb, Fla.App.1964, 170 So. 2d 54; Security Mutual Casualty Company v. Grice, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 834; Luby Chevrolet, Inc. v. Foster, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 510. Affirmed.…
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
- Dickler v. Gates, 72 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1954)
- Arex Indem. Co. v. Radin, 72 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1954)
- Wilford A. Baughman v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 78 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1955)
- Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Russell, 137 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1962)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Company-Workmen's Comp. Lienor v. Lige Harb, 170 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Sec. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Grice, 172 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. McNAIR, 152 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)