ALBERT HERRERA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN THOMAS GOSNELL 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 reversed the trial court's order requiring full repayment of insurance benefits and held that equitable distribution of insurance funds under F.S. 627.736(3)(b) does not require the filing of a lawsuit.
Equitable distribution of insurance benefits under F.S. 627.736(3)(b) does not depend upon the filing of suit.
[1] Equitable distribution of insurance benefits under F.S. …
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 benefits from Reserve Insurance Company and was ordered by the trial court to repay 100% of those benefits based on the trial court…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals a trial court order requiring him to pay back 100% of the benefits he’d received from Reserve Insurance Company. The order was based upon the trial court’s interpretation of F.S. 627.736 (1971). We reverse and remand upon the authority of Catches v. Gov’t. Employees Ins. Co., 295 So. 2d 116 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1974); Reyes v. Banks, 292 So. 2d 39 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1974); Schwartz v. Hughey, 292 So. 2d 43 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1974), and White v. Reserve Ins. Co., 299 So. 2d 661 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1974). There should 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 equitable distribution. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Manee, 292 So. 2d 52 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974). We do not subscribe to this requirement and hold equitable distribution does not depend upon the filing of suit. In so doing we align ourselves with the First District. See Catches v. Gov’t. Employees Ins. Co., supra.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN, C. J., WALDEN, J., and FAR-RINGTON, OTIS, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reserve Ins. Co. v. Hargrove, 319 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ny reimbursement for personal injury protection benefits paid to the plaintiff below and for equitable distribution under the provisions of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act. We reverse upon authority of Herrera v. Gosnell, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 876; Reyes v. Banks, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 39 and American Fire and Casualty Company v. Oller, Fla.App.1975, 313 So. 2d 67. The order appealed from is reversed and this cause remanded for further consideration in light of the principles announced in…
Authorities Cited
- Florentine Reyes v. Leonard L. Banks, 292 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- White v. Reserve Ins. Co., 299 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st 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)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Guillet, 294 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Catches v. Gov't Emps. INS. Co., 295 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Bojman v. Southland Assocs. Realtors, 287 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Merrill Schwartz v. Hughey, 292 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)