LOUIS FINE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Workers' compensation benefits are concurrent with personal injury protection (PIP) benefits and should be credited against PIP coverage limits, not against the total amount of PIP coverage available.
Plaintiff-insured was injured in a job-related accident and sought personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from his insurer. The insurer contended t…
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 Workmen'S Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff-insured appeals from a final judgment entered in the lower court in favor of defendant-insurer. The final judgment provided that workmen’s compensation benefits available to plaintiff as a result of injuries sustained in a job related automobile accident were primary to any claim for personal injury protection benefits (p. i. p.) sought by plaintiff from his insurer and that workmen’s compensation received by plaintiff should be credited against p. i. p. coverage limits.
It is appellee-insurer’s contention that p. i. p. benefits are not required to be paid until the available workmen’s compensation insurance is exhausted. Once the benefits paid under said workmen’s compensation accrue to the amount of $5,000.00, the existing statutory limit for payment of p. i. p. benefits, the personal injury protection insurer is relieved from paying the claimant any additional payments pursuant to provisions in the claimant’s automobile insurance policy.
We were faced with an identical contention in the recent case of Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company v. Regalado, 339 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). We stated there that the purpose of the Automobile Reparations Reform Act was to broaden insurance coverage and that pursuant to Section 627.-78t>(4), Florida Statutes (1975), workmen’s compensation benefits received by a claimant were therefore to be credited against p. i. p. benefits paid by an insurer, and not credited against the total amount of personal injury coverage available. In so ruling, we concluded the p. i. p. benefits and workmen’s compensation benefits were concurrent and exhaustion of workmen’s compensation was not a prerequisite to receiving p. i. p. benefits.
In light of the above, the final judgment appealed is reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comeau v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am., 356 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1978)…on petition for writ of certiorari granted to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Comeau v. Safeco Insurance Co., 342 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), which directly conflicts with Fine v. Travelers Insurance Co., 342 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. While in the course of his employment, the petitioner was injured when the tractor-trailer which he was driving became involved in an accident. R…
-
Odell Davis v. Travelers Indem. Co., 356 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1978)…cision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 343 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), which directly conflicts with Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Regalado, 339 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and Fine v. Travelers Insurance Co., 342 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), thereby vesting jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Petitioner was involved in an one-car accident in the course and scope of his employment. He applied for personal injury pr…
-
Kovarnik v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…id its policy limits. Most importantly here, is that P.I.P. benefits and workmen’s compensation benefits are concurrent and exhaustion of workmen’s compensation benefits is not a prerequisite to receiving P.I.P. benefits. Fine v. Travelers Ins. Co., 342 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Regalado, 339 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Therefore the defendant’s initial response to plaintiff’s claim for P.I.P. benefits, if it could be reasonably interpreted as an unequivocal denial of cove…
Authorities Cited
- Charter OAK Fire Ins. Co. v. Regalado, 339 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)