HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JAY ORLOW, 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.
The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the insurer $300 as equitable distribution from the settlement proceeds.
An insured received injuries and personal injury protection benefits from his insurer. He later settled a personal injury action against a third party…
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 insurer seeks review of the trial court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for equitable distribution.
On February 24, 1973 the appellee, Jay Orlow, received certain injuries as a result of an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, appellee was insured by the appellant, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company. Under the personal injury protection benefits of the Hartford policy, without regard to fault, Jay Orlow received $3,707.49.
Thereafter, in August 1973 appellee initiated an action against the third party tortfeasor and her liability insurer. Subsequently, this personal injury action was settled for $9,500 which was $500 less than the tortfeasor’s policy limit of $10,000. Appellee then filed a motion for equitable distribution on the insurance company lien filed by the appellant company. Petitioner-appellee filed in support of his motion his deposition testimony and an affidavit. After a hearing was held on this motion, the trial judge entered an order awarding appellant insurance company $300 reimbursement on its lien on the proceeds of the settlement. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company appeals therefrom.
The amount awarded to an insurer as equitable distribution is clearly within the discretion of the trial court. See State Farm Automobile Insurance Company v. Hauser, Fla.App. 1973, 281 So. 2d 563; Reyes v. Banks, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 39.
After a close examination of the record on appeal, we conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in its award of $300 as a fair and equitable distribution of the proceeds of recovery in the case sub judice.
Accordingly, the order herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacques Lobry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 398 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…. Tote, 325 So. 2d 57 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Gordon, 319 So. 2d 36 (Fla.lst DCA 1975); Central National Insurance Group v. Hotte, 312 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1st DCA 1975); Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Orlow, 300 So. 2d 36 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). . Central National Insurance Group v. Hotte, 312 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1st DCA 1975). . Travelers Indemnity Company v. Causey, 381 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). . See § 627.7372(3), Fla.Stat. (1979). . See § 440.34, Fla.Stat. (1979…
-
Manchester Ins. & Indem. Co. v. Rodriguez, 331 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…m ordinarily than it would have been on a large corporation.” In addition, the amount awarded to an insurer as equitable distribution is clearly within the discretion of the trial judge. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Orlow, Fla.App.1974, 300 So. 2d 36. In light of the above principles and guidelines and in view of the fact of the protracted litigation due to the lack of eyewitnesses making it necessary for plaintiff to identify the vehicle and the driver on largely circumstantial evidence, we co…
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marcelino Avila, 317 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…mnity 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 & Indemnity Company v. Orlow, Fla.App.1974, 300 So. 2d 36; Central National Insurance Company v. Fernandez, Fla.App. 1975, 307 So. 2d 906. One of the most recent opinions on this matter is one by the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, which obviously was not available to the trial judge, styled Am…
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)