Continental Insurance v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Continental Insurance v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance

427 So. 2d 792, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18814

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1114

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 427 So. 2d 792 (Continental Insurance v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance) 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

Continental Insurance v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance, 427 So. 2d 792, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18814 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment entered by the trial court dismissing Continental’s complaint is affirmed. We conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action upon a holding that: (1) there is no common law cause of action for failure to recognize and protect subrogation rights of a workmen’s compensation carrier; subrogation on the part of an employer’s carrier in a workmen’s compensation case is solely a creature of statute, Maryland Casualty Co. v. Smith, 272 So.2d 517 (Fla.1973); Brinson v. Southeastern Utilities Service Co., 72 So.2d 37 (Fla.1954); Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York v. Bedingfield, 60 So.2d 489, 495 (Fla.1952); Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Miller, 274 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), and, in order to avail itself of the benefits conferred by statute, the insurer must comply with the rules and conditions stated therein, Cook Motor Co. v. Vaughn, 189 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Security Mutual Casualty Co. v. Grice, 172 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); and (2) assuming, for the sake of argument, that Continental had elected to proceed under the statute for equitable distribution, the complaint was insufficient for failing to allege that the lien was recorded as specifically required by Section 440.39(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975).¹ Cotton Belt Insurance Co., Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 402 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Right v. Capeletti Brothers, 384 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Alfar Creamery Co. v. Williams, 366 So.2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So.2d 98 (Fla.1979); cf. Aetna Insurance Co. v. Harper, 379 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). See Dunnell v. Malone and Hyde, Inc., 425 So.2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The other issues raised present no basis for reversal.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment entered by the trial court dismissing Continental’s complaint is affirmed. We conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action upon a holding that: (1) there is no common law cause of action for failure to recognize and protect subrogation rights of a workmen’s compensation carrier; subrogation on the part of an employer’s carrier in a workmen’s compensation case is solely a creature of statute, Maryland Casualty Co. v. Smith, 272 So.2d 517 (Fla.1973); Brinson v. Southeastern Utilities Service Co., 72 So.2d 37 (Fla.1954); Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York v. Bedingfield, 60 So.2d 489, 495 (Fla.1952); Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Miller, 274 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), and, in order to avail itself of the benefits conferred by statute, the insurer must comply with the rules and conditions stated therein, Cook Motor Co. v. Vaughn, 189 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Security Mutual Casualty Co. v. Grice, 172 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); and (2) assuming, for the sake of argument, that Continental had elected to proceed under the statute for equitable distribution, the complaint was insufficient for failing to allege that the lien was recorded as specifically required by Section 440.39(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975).¹ Cotton Belt Insurance Co., Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 402 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Right v. Capeletti Brothers, 384 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Alfar Creamery Co. v. Williams, 366 So.2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So.2d 98 (Fla.1979); cf. Aetna Insurance Co. v. Harper, 379 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). See Dunnell v. Malone and Hyde, Inc., 425 So.2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The other issues raised present no basis for reversal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 So. 2d 792, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-insurance-v-industrial-fire-casualty-insurance-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack