Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Yadevia

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Yadevia

579 So. 2d 213, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3777, 1991 WL 63775

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 1991

DocketNo. 90-02965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 213 (Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Yadevia) 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

Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Yadevia, 579 So. 2d 213, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3777, 1991 WL 63775 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant Atlanta Casualty Company, the PIP insurer for plaintiff Marybeth Yadevia who was injured in an automobile accident by a third party tortfeasor, appeals from the summary judgment determining that Yadevia is entitled to PIP benefits for medical expenses notwithstanding the payment of those expenses by Yade-via’s employer’s worker’s compensation carrier.

On the authority of Fortune Ins. Co. v. McGhee, 571 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), we reverse. Under the circumstances of this case which are similar to those in McGhee, plaintiff is entitled to PIP benefits only to the extent that her “satisfaction of the [worker’s] compensation lien [on the proceeds of plaintiff's settlement with the tortfeasor] depleted the amount of ... [her] ... settlement” with the tort-feasor, i.e., to the extent plaintiff paid the worker’s compensation carrier for the satisfaction of the worker’s compensation lien, “plus the amount of attorney’s fees and costs permitted by section 440.39(3)(a), Florida Statutes [1985].” Id. at 548. In other words, plaintiff is entitled to those benefits only to the extent that she would not thereby receive double payment from both worker’s compensation and PIP. See also South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Arnold, 467 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Since in this case the PIP insurer had already paid plaintiff the amount for which plaintiff settled the worker’s compensation lien and no claim for the foregoing attorney’s fees and costs was made below, plaintiff was entitled to no further recovery from that insurer in this suit.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant Atlanta Casualty Company, the PIP insurer for plaintiff Marybeth Yadevia who was injured in an automobile accident by a third party tortfeasor, appeals from the summary judgment determining that Yadevia is entitled to PIP benefits for medical expenses notwithstanding the payment of those expenses by Yade-via’s employer’s worker’s compensation carrier.

On the authority of Fortune Ins. Co. v. McGhee, 571 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), we reverse. Under the circumstances of this case which are similar to those in McGhee, plaintiff is entitled to PIP benefits only to the extent that her “satisfaction of the [worker’s] compensation lien [on the proceeds of plaintiff's settlement with the tortfeasor] depleted the amount of ... [her] ... settlement” with the tort-feasor, i.e., to the extent plaintiff paid the worker’s compensation carrier for the satisfaction of the worker’s compensation lien, “plus the amount of attorney’s fees and costs permitted by section 440.39(3)(a), Florida Statutes [1985].” Id. at 548. In other words, plaintiff is entitled to those benefits only to the extent that she would not thereby receive double payment from both worker’s compensation and PIP. See also South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Arnold, 467 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Since in this case the PIP insurer had already paid plaintiff the amount for which plaintiff settled the worker’s compensation lien and no claim for the foregoing attorney’s fees and costs was made below, plaintiff was entitled to no further recovery from that insurer in this suit.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 213, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3777, 1991 WL 63775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlanta-casualty-co-v-yadevia-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack