General Fire & Casualty Co. v. First National Bank of Tampa ex rel. Stasio

District Court of Appeal of Florida

General Fire & Casualty Co. v. First National Bank of Tampa ex rel. Stasio

306 So. 2d 193, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 18739

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 22, 1975

DocketNo. 74-271

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 306 So. 2d 193 (General Fire & Casualty Co. v. First National Bank of Tampa ex rel. Stasio) 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

General Fire & Casualty Co. v. First National Bank of Tampa ex rel. Stasio, 306 So. 2d 193, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 18739 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

McNULTY, Chief Judge.

Appellant insurance company, a workmen’s compensation carrier, seeks review of an order of “Equitable Distribution” in a successful action on behalf of an injured employee against a third-party tort-feasor. It complains that its pro rata share of the amount recovered was too low for the reason that the trial court erroneously construed § 440.39(3)(a), F.S.1973, as limiting a carrier’s pro rata share to past and future compensation payable by the carrier but to include only past medical payments made. We cannot agree that the trial court erred on the point.

We think a complete reading of § 440.39, supra, considered in pari materia with the entire Ch. 440, F.S.1973, reveals that said section does not provide for nor permit the inclusion of future medical payments in the [194]*194discretionary determination by the court of an equitable pro rata distribution payable to a compensation carrier.¹

Accordingly, there being no other matters meriting discussion, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

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

McNULTY, Chief Judge.

Appellant insurance company, a workmen’s compensation carrier, seeks review of an order of “Equitable Distribution” in a successful action on behalf of an injured employee against a third-party tort-feasor. It complains that its pro rata share of the amount recovered was too low for the reason that the trial court erroneously construed § 440.39(3)(a), F.S.1973, as limiting a carrier’s pro rata share to past and future compensation payable by the carrier but to include only past medical payments made. We cannot agree that the trial court erred on the point.

We think a complete reading of § 440.39, supra, considered in pari materia with the entire Ch. 440, F.S.1973, reveals that said section does not provide for nor permit the inclusion of future medical payments in the [194]*194discretionary determination by the court of an equitable pro rata distribution payable to a compensation carrier.¹

Accordingly, there being no other matters meriting discussion, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 So. 2d 193, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 18739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-fire-casualty-co-v-first-national-bank-of-tampa-ex-rel-stasio-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack