TOMIE LEE MURRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
LEATHERBY INSURANCE COMPANY, AN INSURANCE COMPANY AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Murray appeals a trial court order requiring his insurer, Leatherby Insurance Company, to receive 100% reimbursement of personal injury protection benefits paid under Florida's automobile reparations law from a settlement. The appellate court reverses, holding that equitable distribution—not full reimbursement—applies when a lawsuit has been filed.
The court held that equitable distribution under Fla. Stat. § 627.736(3)(b) applies to settlements made after a lawsuit is filed, rather than full reimbursement under paragraph (a). The trial court erred in awarding 100% reimbursement and must reconsider on the basis of equitable distribution.
[1] An insurer is not automatically entitled to 100% reimbursement of personal injury protection benefits paid from a settlement obtained by its insured.
[2] When an insured files a lawsuit to recover damages, the insurer's reimbursement of personal injury protection benefits from a settlement is governed by the equitable dist…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“where there was a suit to recover as in the case sub judice, the trial court is correct in proceeding under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of § 627.736 rather than by granting full reimbursement under paragraph (a) thereof”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that equitable distribution applies when a lawsuit has been filed, citing State Farm v. Hauser
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 12, 1972, Tomie Lee Murray was injured in a vehicle collision and received $1,548.15 in personal injury protection benefits from his insur…
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
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant appeals the trial court’s order awarding his insurer 100% reimbursement of the personal injury protection benefits it has paid under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act in the sum of $1,548.15, and not allowing equitable distribution.
On February 12, 1972 the appellant, Tomie Lee Murray, received certain inju ries as a result of a collision of the vehicle he was driving with the vehicles operated and/or owned by the defendants. At the time, plaintiff-appellant was insured under a policy issued by the appellee, Leatherby Insurance Company. Under the personal injury protection benefits provision of this policy, without regard to fault, Tomie Murray received $1,548.15 from his insurer. Thereafter, Tomie Murray as plaintiff filed suit against the defendants Isaac James and his wife Sara, Richard Newton and Charles Newton and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, the insurer of Mr. and Mrs. James, seeking damages in excess of $2,500. Subsequently, plaintiff and the defendants agreed upon a settlement in the amount of $3,800. The plaintiff then moved the court to determine the amount to be received by his insurer, Leatherby Insurance Company, out of the proceeds of the settlement as equitable distribution. The trial court entered its order holding that appellee-insurer should re-' cover 100% reimbursement from the proceeds of the settlement rather than reimbursement on an equitable basis.
On appeal, plaintiff-appellant contends that the trial court erred in awarding Leatherby 100% reimbursement where the equitable distribution referred to in Fla. Stat. § 627.736(3) (b), F.S.A. should be applied. We concur. We find the case of State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hauser, Fla.App. 1973, 281 So. 2d 563, which is factually similar to the case at bar (i. e. a settlement after suit was filed) to be controlling. In Hauser, the court determined that where there was a suit to recover as in the case sub judice, the trial courf is correct in proceeding under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of § 627.736 rather than by granting full reimbursement under paragraph (a) thereof.
Accordingly, we must reverse the judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for a reconsideration and determination of the amount of reimbursement to be awarded to appellee-insurer on the basis of equitable distribution pursuant to F.S. § 627.736(3) (b).
It is so ordered.