LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AS PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION CARRIER, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH J. GUILLET AND JOHN C. ANCRUM, 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.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appealed an equitable distribution order awarding it only $445.14 reimbursement from its insured's $6,500 settlement with a third-party tortfeasor, despite paying $2,402.80 in PIP benefits. The court affirmed the principle of equitable distribution but reversed and remanded the reimbursement amount as unreasonably low given the total recovery.
The court affirmed that equitable distribution was properly applicable because a lawsuit was filed, but reversed the reimbursement amount as unreasonably disproportionate to both the PIP payments made and the total recovery, and remanded for reconsideration of an appropriate reimbursement amount.
[1] Equitable distribution of settlement proceeds between an insured and their PIP carrier is applicable when a lawsuit is filed against the tortfeasor.
[2] A trial court's award of equitable distribution to a PIP carrier must be supported by facts or equitable considerations justifying the limited reimbursement.
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“subsection (3) (b) clearly would be applicable in the present case because a lawsuit was filed”
Establishes that equitable distribution applies under the statute when an insured files suit against a tortfeasor
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph J. Guillet was injured in an automobile accident with John C. Ancrum. Liberty Mutual paid Guillet $2,402.80 in PIP benefits ($1,673.40 for medi…
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
HENDRY, Judge.
The Liberty Mutual Insurance Company seeks review of an order awarding the company $445.14 as equitable distribution from proceeds which its insured, Joseph J. Guillet, recovered from a settlement with John C. Ancrum, the third party tortfeasor in this cause. Guillet was involved in an automobile accident with Ancrum. Thereafter, Guillet made application to his insurance company, Liberty Mutual, for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the provisions of the “no-fault” insurance law. Liberty Mutual made payments to Guillet totaling $2,402.80, consisting of $1,673.40 for medical expenses and $729.40 for disability and lost wages expenses.
Subsequently, Guillet filed a complaint against Ancrum, and prior to any discovery or the filing of an answer by Ancrum, the suit was settled with the latter’s insurance carrier for $6,500.
Guillet then filed a motion for equitable distribution reciting the above facts, and praying for an order of equitable distribution pro-rating the amount of medical payments, lost earnings, court costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
Liberty Mutual filed a memorandum of law in opposition thereto, and seeking full reimbursement of its prior PIP payments under Fla.Stat. § 627.736(3) (a), F.S.A. The insurer contended that equitable distribution under subsection (3) (b) of the same statute was not proper in this case.
But, as this court stated in State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hauser, Fla.App.1973, 281 So. 2d 563, subsection (3) (b) clearly would be applicable in the present case because a lawsuit was filed. See also, State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Mance, Fla.App. 3rd, 1974, 292 So. 2d 52; Reyes v. Banks, Fla.App. 4th, 1974, 292 So. 2d 39.
Nevertheless, in the instant case, Liberty Mutual also relies on our holding in Hauser as grounds for reversal. We must agree. In Hauser, the insured recovered $5,000 in a settlement with the tortfeasor after suit was filed. In addition, the insured’s carrier had paid $1,339.60 in PIP benefits. Based on a $6,339.60 total recovery, we noted that a $150 sum awarded to the insurance company as equitable distribution seemed unreasonable inasmuch as the record demonstrated no facts or equitable consideration justifying such a small reimbursement.
In this case, the insured recovered a total of $8,902.80, and the PIP carrier was awarded only $445.14 reimbursement out of a total payment of $2,402.80. The record sub judice is likewise devoid of facts or equitable considerations supporting such a limited reimbursement.
Therefore, reaching the same determination we did in Hauser, we affirm that portion of the judgment providing for equitable distribution in this case. However, we reverse the judgment as to the amount of reimbursement awarded the insurance company, and we remand this case to the trial court for a reconsideration of the reimbursement to be awarded.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Diaz, 296 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…recovery was made, a reimbursement allowance of only 10% of the personal injury protection benefits was inadequate. See State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hauser, Fla. App. 1973, 281 So. 2d 563; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Guillet, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 1. In this connection it must be noted that under subparagraph (a) of Section 3 of § 627.736, when recovery is had without suit, an insurer having paid personal injury protection benefits is entitled to full reimbursement to the extent the net amount…
-
Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 294 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…HENDRY, Judge. The point involved in this appeal presents a question similar to the one considered in, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Guillet, Fla.App., 294 So. 2d 1, decided today. Unlike the situation in the Liberty Mutual case, however, the order appealed in this cause denied the appellant’s petition for equitable distribution and awarded the appellant’s personal injury protection (PIP) insurance carrier ful…
-
Herrera v. Gosnell, 297 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…hould be an equitable distribution of the insurance funds in accordance with F.S. 627.736(3) (b) (1971) and these authorities. The Third District has also endorsed equitable distribution under like circumstances, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Guillet, 294 So. 2d 1 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974); Murray v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 287 So. 2d 344 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973); State Farm Automobile Ins. Co. v. Hauser, 281 So. 2d 563 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973); but has added a requirement that suit must have been filed in order to warrant equit…
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
- Florentine Reyes v. Leonard L. Banks, 292 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hauser, 281 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mance, 292 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)