CATHY K. JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
A PIP insurance carrier sought full reimbursement of benefits paid to an insured who settled her personal injury claim. The court reversed the trial court's denial of equitable distribution, holding that the insured was entitled to retain some PIP funds based on equitable considerations, including litigation costs.
The insured is entitled to retain some of the PIP money paid by the carrier based on equitable considerations. Costs incurred in filing suit against the alleged tortfeasor are proper for equitable distribution, and the case must be reconsidered using established guidelines to determine the appropriate amount of equitable distribution.
[1] A personal injury protection (PIP) insurance carrier is entitled to equitable distribution of benefits paid to an insured who recovers from a tortfeasor.
[2] Costs incurred in filing suit against a tortfeasor are proper for equitable distribution to an insured who received PIP benefits.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Our review of the record does reveal equitable matters which would entitle the appellant to retain some of the PIP money which the appellee paid.”
Establishes that the insured has a right to equitable distribution based on equitable considerations in the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was injured in an automobile accident and her PIP carrier paid $2,236.75 in benefits. She filed suit against the tortfeasor and his insurance …
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
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 full reimbursement for benefits previously paid to the appellant.
The record in the present case reflects that the appellant was involved in an automobile accident for which the appellee, her PIP carrier, paid $2,236.75. Thereafter, appellant filed a complaint against the alleged tortfeasor, Marcelino Jimenez, and her insurance company. An answer was filed together with a “Request For Production Of Documents And Things.” These discovery matters were supplied to the defendants by the appellant and her attorney. In addition, interrogatories were propounded to the appellant, which she answered. The defendants also filed motions for a physical examination of the appellant and to add her husband as a party plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, and less then four months after the complaint had been filed, the parties settled the suit for $10,000.
The appellant then petitioned the court for equitable distribution of the PIP payments her insurer had made to her. The court thereafter entered the order now appealed.
The appellee cites State Farm Auto Ins. Co. v. Hauser, Fla.App. 1973, 281 So. 2d 563, which likewise was cited by the trial judge, in support of the order denying equitable distribution.
In essence, the appellee contends that the appellant elicited no facts or equitable considerations which would entitle her or her attorney to equitable distribution in this case. We disagree.
Our review of the record does reveal equitable matters which would entitle the appellant to retain some of the PIP money which the appellee paid. For instance, we think that any costs incurred in filing suit against the alleged tortfeasor would be proper for equitable distribution.
In this connection, we point out the recent opinion written by Judge Cross of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Reyes v. Banks, Fla.App. 1974, 292 So. 2d 39. In that decision, five guidelines were enumerated by the court to provide assistance in reaching determinations as to the amount of equitable distribution which should be given under Fla.Stat. § 627.-736(3)(b), F.S.A. Therefore, for the reasons stated, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to reconsider and redetermine the amount to be awarded the insurance company as equitable distribution.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cent. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Fernandez, 307 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ite v. Reserve Insurance Company, Fla.App.1974, 299 So. 2d 661; Reyes v. Banks, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 39; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Diaz, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 504; and, Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 2. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marcelino Avila, 317 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…, 292 So. 2d 39; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Mance, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 52; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Guillet, Fla.App. 1974, 294 So. 2d 1; Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 2; Hartford Accident Insurance & Indemnity Company v. Diaz, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 504; White v. Reserve Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1974, 299 So. 2d 661;1 Unigard Insurance Company v. Davis, Fla.App.1974, 299 So. 2d 667; Hartford Accident & Indemn…
Authorities 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)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Guillet, 294 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)