ODELL DAVIS, PETITIONER,
v.
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether workers' compensation benefits reduce the $5,000 maximum personal injury protection (PIP) benefit available under automobile insurance. The Court held that workers' compensation payments do not diminish the $5,000 PIP maximum and reinstated the trial court's judgment allowing the insured to recover lost wages under PIP with a credit only for workers' compensation payments received for those same wages.
The $5,000 maximum PIP benefit does not enter into consideration of primary versus secondary coverage under Florida Statute Section 627.736, and workers' compensation benefits do not diminish the $5,000 PIP maximum. An insured may recover lost wage benefits under the PIP coverage against his own carrier with credit given only for workers' compensation payments received for those same lost wages.
[1] Workmen's compensation benefits are not credited against the $5,000 maximum liability of a personal injury protection carrier.
[2] A personal injury protection carrier may be liable for benefits for lost wages, giving credit for sums received under workmen's compensation law.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“that the $5,000.00 maximum does not enter into a consideration of that which is primary and that which is secondary under Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1975); that petitioner may recover any benefits recoverable for lost wages under the Florida Automobile Reparations Act against his own carrier giving credit therefor for any sums under workmen's compensation law”
The trial court's ruling establishing that the $5,000 PIP maximum and the offset for workers' compensation are separate concepts
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOdell Davis was injured in a one-car accident during the course of his employment. He claimed both personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from Trav…
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 Offset Of Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
KARL, Justice.
We have for review on petition for writ of certiorari the decision 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 protection benefits from respondent, Travelers, under his policy of automobile liability insurance and for workmen’s compensation benefits.
As of August 11,1975, Travelers had paid a total of $1,174.28, and the workmen’s compensation carrier had paid a total of $3,684.92, as well as payment of hospital expenses. As of this date, Travelers disclaimed any further liability on the basis that personal injury protection payments and workmen’s compensation benefits had exceeded $5,000.00. By letter, Travelers advised petitioner’s attorney that since, under Section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes (1975), workmen’s compensation benefits are credited against the benefits provided by Section 627.736(1), Florida Statutes (1975), it had exhausted the total amount of personal injury protection benefits which could be payable under petitioner’s policy. Petitioner then filed a complaint against Travelers to recover additional personal injury protection benefits and for a declaratory judgment as to whether the workmen’s compensation benefits he received diminish the benefits due from his personal injury protection carrier under Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1975). Travelers answered that it had paid to petitioner all benefits to which he was entitled under the policy.
After pre-trial conference, with the consent of the parties, the trial court made a determination as to whether the $5,000 maximum liability of the personal injury protection carrier is diminished by amounts received from workmen’s compensation for the same benefits as those provided under the personal injury protection coverage. The trial court held that the $5,000.00 maximum does not enter into a consideration of that which is primary and that which is secondary under Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (1975); that petitioner may recover any benefits recoverable for lost wages under the Florida Automobile Reparations Act against his own carrier giving credit therefor for any sums under workmen’s compensation law; that the trial of the cause would be limited to the issues of what lost wages have resulted to petitioner as a result of the accident and what workmen’s compensation benefits shall be credited to such lost wages as a result of workmen’s compensation payments; that the judgment against Travelers shall not exceed $5,000.00 less payments, if any, as it has made; and that payments by workmen’s compensation carrier shall not be a credit against the $5,000.00 maximum. The parties, thereafter, stipulated that the amount due under 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 the decision of the District Court, sub judiee, and agree with the judgment of the trial court.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court of Appeal is quashed, and this cause is remanded with directions that the judgment of the trial court be reinstated.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pate v. Renfroe, 715 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ses under the facts of the present case. The final judgment against Pate provides no funds with which the workers’ compensation carrier could be repaid. See Comeau v. Safeco Ins. Co., 356 So. 2d 790, 794 (Fla.1978); Davis v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 356 So. 2d 794 (Fla.1978); Kovarnik v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The trial judge further reasoned that, if not for the impact in this case of the offer of judgment statute, Pate would have recovered a positive verdict, from which h…
-
Kovarnik v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…be justified in denying P.I.P. benefits to the plaintiff merely because plaintiff may have also been entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits. See Comeau v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 356 So. 2d 790 (Fla.1978); Davis v. Travelers Imdemnity Co., 356 So. 2d 794 (Fla.1978). Although a claimant cannot receive both workmen’s compensation benefits and P.I.P. benefits in such a manner as to be over compensated for the same injury; still workmen’s compensation benefits received by a claimant do not decrease the…
Authorities Cited
- Charter OAK Fire Ins. Co. v. Regalado, 339 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Fine v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 342 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- State v. Schwarzbauer, 342 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Comeau v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am., 342 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Odell Davis, 343 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)