GEORGE COMEAU, APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF),
v.
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, APPELLEE (DEFENDANT)
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.
This case interprets Florida's Automobile Reparations Act regarding the interaction between personal injury protection (PIP) insurance benefits and workers' compensation payments. The court resolved a dispute about whether an insurer must supplement workers' compensation benefits until the insurer pays its full $5,000 limit or until the insured receives a combined $5,000 total from both sources.
The court held that Section 627.736(4) requires an insurer to supplement workers' compensation benefits only until the insured has received a combined total of $5,000 from both workers' compensation and personal injury protection benefits. The statutory language crediting workers' compensation benefits against the $5,000 limitation means the total aggregate PIP benefits available are reduced by the amount of workers' compensation benefits received.
[1] Personal injury protection benefits are primary, except that benefits received under any workmen's compensation law shall be credited against the personal injury protecti…
[2] When workmen's compensation benefits are received for the same items of loss and expense, the total aggregate limit of personal injury protection benefits available shall…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“benefits received under any workmen's compensation law shall be credited against the benefits provided by subsection (1)”
This is the statutory language at issue that the court interpreted to mean workers' compensation payments reduce the total aggregate PIP benefits available.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComeau was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a tractor-trailer in the course of his employment. Safeco provided $5,000 in statutory PI…
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 Worker'S Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
By this appeal, we are called upon to construe a part of the Florida Automobile Reparations Act, subsection (4) of Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1975), which provides that personal injury protection benefits shall be primary, “except that benefits received under any workmen’s compensation law shall be credited against the benefits provided by subsection (1)”. Subsection (1) limits the benefits to $5,000.00.
Comeau contends that subsection (4) requires a personal injury protection insurer to supplement workmen’s compensation benefits until the insurer has paid its limits of $5,000.00. Safeco contends that the subsection requires an insurer to supplement workmen’s compensation benefits until the insured has been paid, both from workmen’s compensation benefits and from the insurer, $5,000.00.
While driving a tractor-trailer in the course of his employment, Comeau was involved in an accident and suffered bodily injuries. Safeco provided him with $5,000.00 statutory personal injury protection benefits. The workmen’s compensation carrier of Comeau’s employer paid him weekly compensation of $105.00. Safeco paid him the difference of $160.36 a week for lost wages until 2 January 1976, at which time Safeco advised him that no further benefits would be paid because the workmen’s compensation benefits plus personal injury protection benefits paid to him exceeded the $5,000.00 statutory limitation.
Comeau filed a declaratory judgment action against Safeco which resulted in the trial court ruling that subsection (4) only required Safeco to supplement workmen’s compensation benefits until Comeau had been paid, both from workmen’s compensation benefits and personal injury protection benefits, a total of $5,000.00. It is from this judgment that Comeau appeals. Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, conveying a clear and definite meaning, a court will not apply its interpretation. Wagner v. Botts, 88 So. 2d 611 (Fla.1956). The legislature clearly and plainly stated in subsection (4) that workmen’s compensation benefits are credited against the statutory $5,000.00 limitation. It is obvious that the legislature intended that when workmen’s compensation benefits are received for the same items of loss and expense under any workmen’s compensation law, the total aggregate limit of personal injury protection benefits available with respect to such bodily injury shall be reduced by the amount of workmen’s compensation benefits received.
Safeco’s contention and the trial court’s interpretation of subsection (4) were correct.
The judgment is affirmed.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comeau v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am., 356 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1978)…KARL, Justice. This cause is before us 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 pet…
-
King v. State, 410 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…vides probable cause by indicating the informant made an actual purchase or other exchange or actually observed illegal acts within a certain stated period which is not remote to the date of application for the search warrant. State v. Schwarzbauer, 342 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); State v. Bishop, 395 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). However, where affidavits to search warrants indicate merely that the police and the informant met or conferred within a certain given period of time, without noting when the i…1 / 2
-
Odell Davis v. Travelers Indem. Co., 356 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1978)…er the court’s ruling would be $3,825.72, with-costs of $26.00 and attorneys fees of $1,000.00. Pinal judgment was entered thereon. Upon appeal, the District Court of Appeal reversed the final judgment on the authority of Comeau v. Safeco Ins. Co., 342 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), which decision is also before this Court for review. We have this date quashed the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Comeau v. Safeco Ins. Co., supra. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise quash…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wagner v. Botts, 88 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1956)