JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT,
v.
HERBERT STANLEY CUTTRISS, APPELLEE
The sole question on this appeal is whether a compensation carrier has the exclusive right, in the second year after the accrual of a cause of action, to institute an action against a third party tort feasor pursuant to § 440.39, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
We reject this argument and hold that in the second year the injured employee and the carrier have concurrent rights against a third party tort feasor. But, the right to proceed against the tort feasor is limited to the one who files his cause of action first. Home Indemnity Company v. McAdams, Fla. App. 1962, 139 So.2d 433; Zurich Insurance Company v. Renton, Fla. App. 1966, 189 So.2d 492.
Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s orders here under review.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorman K. Kimbrell, Jr. v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1984)…tute gives the carrier the right to institute an action against the third-party tortfeasor if the employee does not institute an action during the first year after the accrual of the cause of action. § 440.39(4)(a); Jersey Insurance Co. v. Cuttriss, 220 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). If the employee does not bring suit within the first year, the insurance carrier can file suit after giving the required thirty-day notice to the employee (or his dependents) and the employee’s attorney. § 440.39(4)(a). It is cle…
-
The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Bortz, 271 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1972)…the trial court entered an order allowing Bortz to substitute counsel, but retaining Aetna as a party plaintiff. This provoked a motion for rehearing by Aetna, based on Fla.Stat. § 440.39(4) (a), F.S.A., and Jersey Ins. Co. of New York v. Cuttriss, 220 So. 2d 15 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1969), a case holding that while suit rights were concurrent in the second year, the right to proceed was limited to the one filing a cause of action first. In response, the trial court reaffirmed its order. After the case had procee…
-
Md. Cas. Co. v. Smith, 272 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1973)…ent. Since the language of (4) (a) stresses “may”, it is assumed that the Legislature intended that the rights of the employer and employee are concurrent in the second year until one or the other acts first. Jersey Ins. Co. of New York v. Cuttriss, 220 So. 2d 15 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1969); Home Indemnity Co. v. McAdams, 139 So. 2d 433 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1962); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Renton, 189 So. 2d 492 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1966). If the employer fails to act in the second year, subsection' (4) (b) provides that equitable di…
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
- Zurich Ins. Co. v. Renton, 189 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Home Indem. Co. v. McADAMS, 139 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)