Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazorra

599 So. 2d 739, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5825, 1992 WL 115783
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 2, 1992
Docket92-651
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 599 So. 2d 739 (Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazorra) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazorra, 599 So. 2d 739, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5825, 1992 WL 115783 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

599 So.2d 739 (1992)

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
Pelayo MAZORRA, Respondent.

No. 92-651.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 2, 1992.

Dean A. Mitchell, Miami, for petitioner.

Deutsch & Blumberg, James C. Blecke, Miami, for respondent.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The county court denied Mazorra p.i.p. benefits because the covered expenses had been paid through workers' compensation, even though the comp. carrier had, in effect, been reimbursed by the claimant through the settlement and satisfaction of its lien on his recovery in a third-party case. On appeal, the circuit court reversed on the authority of South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Arnold, 467 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), which, squarely to the contrary of the county court, awarded p.i.p. under identical circumstances. The p.i.p. carrier now seeks certiorari review of that reversal. Since it is undisputed that Arnold involved the identical legal question and that the second district is the only Florida court of appeal to have determined the issue, accord Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Yadevia, 579 So.2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), review denied, 591 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1991); Fortune Ins. Co. v. McGhee, 571 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the circuit court had no choice but to follow Arnold. Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 *740 (Fla. 1992). It therefore could not have departed from the "essential requirements of the law" in doing so. Hence, certiorari might well be denied on this ground alone. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So.2d 624 (Fla. 1982).

In any case, however, this court is of course free to consider the issue as an original question. Pardo, 596 So.2d at 665. On the merits, we completely agree with Arnold and therefore make it a part of the law of this district. See Comeau v. Safeco Ins. Co., 356 So.2d 790 (Fla. 1978); Longman v. Travelers Ins. Co., 371 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Certiorari denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Pressley
28 So. 3d 105 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Omni Ins. Co. v. Special Care Clinic, Inc.
708 So. 2d 314 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
599 So. 2d 739, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5825, 1992 WL 115783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-ins-co-v-mazorra-fladistctapp-1992.