GEORGE CATCHES, APPELLANT,
v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed judgment denying equitable distribution of PIP benefits, holding that equitable distribution applies to all cases under Section 627.736(3)(a) and (b) absent unusual circumstances.
Equitable distribution of PIP benefits is applicable to all cases arising under Sections 627.736(3)(a) and (b) absent unusual or unforeseen circumstances.
[1] Equitable distribution of personal injury protection benefits is applicable to all cases arising under Florida Statutes Section 627.736(3)(a) and (b) absent unusual or un…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant received $5,000 in PIP benefits from his insurer. The tort-feasor's insurer then paid $5,000 individually to appellant and $5,000 jointly to…
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 No-Fault Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Escambia County ordering full reimbursement to appellee (defendant) of the $5,000 personal injury protection (PIP) benefits paid by appellee to appellant (plaintiff) under appellant’s “no fault” automobile liability insurance coverage paid pursuant to Section 627.-736(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. After payment of the $5,000 PIP benefits to appellant, the insurer of appellant’s tort fea-sor paid to appellant its policy limits by issuing one draft for $5,000 payable to appellant individually and a second draft for $5,000 payable to appellant and his insurer, appellee, jointly. Appellant brought this suit praying for equitable distribution of the $5,000 PIP benefits. Appellee contends it is entitled to reimbursement of the full $5,000. The trial court in construing paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of Section 627.736, Florida Statutes, F.S. A., denied equitable distribution and ordered that appellee was entitled to the full $5,000 reimbursement.
In White v. Reserve Insurance Company, 296 So. 2d 661, opinion released May 7, 1974, this court ruled that in the absence of unusual or unforeseen circumstances not now contemplated, “equitable distribution” is applicable to all cases (whether suit be filed or not) arising under Sections 627.-736(3) (a) and 627.736(3) (b).
The judgment is therefore reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
RAWLS, C. J., and McCORD and BOYER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Gateway Ins. Co., 331 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1976)…ourages litigation and defeats the legislative intent. Consequently, the decisions of the Third District in Lymus, Manee and Hauser, supra, are overruled. The First District in White, Unigard and [*304] Catches v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 295 So. 2d 116 (Fla.App.1st 1974) has given effect to the legislature’s intent by harmonizing the paragraphs (a) and (b). However, to adopt these holdings would only engender further confusion as to the correct interpretation of the two paragraphs. Thus, the above…
-
Catches v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 318 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…tribution” of sums recovered from a tort-feasor, is liable for attorney’s fees when the insured pursues judicial relief. Reversed and remanded. McCORD, J., and SMITH, SAMUEL S., Associate Judge, concur. . Catches v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 295 So. 2d 116 (1 Fla.App.1974). . Dunmore v. Interstate Fire Insurance Company, 301 So. 2d 502 (1 Fla.App.1974).…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gordon, 319 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…. v. Hauser, Fla.App. 3rd 1973, 281 So. 2d 563; Reyes v. Banks, Fla.App. 4th 1974, 292 So. 2d 39; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Mance, Fla.App. 3rd 1974, 292 So. 2d 52; Catches v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 295 So. 2d 116 and Unigard Insurance Company v. Davis, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 299 So. 2d 667. . Fla.App. 3rd 1966, 193 So. 2d 224. . See DeCespedes v. Proudence Mut. Cas. Co. of Chicago Ill., Sup.Ct.Fla.1967, 202 So. 2d 561, two justices dissenting. .In that case t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence