HARDWARE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD ROTH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF HIS SON, NEAL ALLEN ROTH, A MINOR, ET AL., 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.
The court held that the trial court has discretion in equitable distribution of a third-party settlement and is not bound to reimburse the compensation carrier for the full amount of medical expenses.
A compensation carrier sought review of an order distributing a $250,000 settlement from a third-party tort action. The carrier had paid over $34,000 …
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 Equitable Distribution Of Settlement Proceeds cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, a compensation carrier, seeks review of an order of equitable distribution entered by the trial court pursuant to § 440.39(3) (a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The original third party tort action was settled. The amount of the compromise settlement was $200,000.00 to the injured minor employee and $50,000.00 to the father of the minor, who had the responsibility for medical expenses.
The appellant urges that the trial court erred in permitting it to recover only $2,000.00 when it had medical expenses in excess of $34,000.00, urging that this court should adopt as a guideline the philosophy that a compensation carrier can recover the full amount of its medical expense against any liability settlement that covers this item, if necessary up to 100% of the settlement less a proportionate amount for costs and attorney’s fees. We reject this argument, in light of the statute vesting the discretion for equitable division in a trial court.
If guidelines are to be set to aid a trial court in this distribution, they should be affixed by the Legislature. This is particularly so in light of the fact that ordinarily a compensation carrier cannot receive any reimbursement from a claimant. This only happens when a third party action is commenced.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed upon the authority of Arex Indemnity 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.
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)…pensation Statute. Therefore, we look for guidance to those workmen’s compensation cases which have been determined by the courts of this state wherein the equitable distribution principle has been applied. See Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. v. Roth, 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…
-
White v. Reserve Ins. Co., 299 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…pensation Statute. Therefore, we look for guidance to those workmen’s compensation cases which have been determined by the courts of this state wherein the equitable distribution principle has been applied. See Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. v. Roth, 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…
-
The Ohio Cas. Grp. v. Parrish, 260 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…So. 2d 889; Walker v. Narose Bldgs., Inc., Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 400. [*551] Appellant’s second and third points essentially question the amount of the apportionment. No error is shown. See Hardware Mutual Insurance Company v. Roth, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 768. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- 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)
- Luby Chevrolet, Inc. v. Oris V. Foster, 177 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)