Herrera v. Gosnell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Herrera v. Gosnell

297 So. 2d 876, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6906

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 26, 1974

DocketNo. 73-540

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 So. 2d 876 (Herrera v. Gosnell) 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

Herrera v. Gosnell, 297 So. 2d 876, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6906 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a trial court order requiring him to pay back 100% of the benefits he’d received from Reserve Insurance Company. The order was based upon the trial court’s interpretation of F.S. 627.736 (1971). We reverse and remand upon the authority of Catches v. Gov’t. Employees Ins. Co., 295 So.2d 116 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1974); Reyes v. Banks, 292 So.2d 39 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1974); Schwartz v. Hughey, 292 So.2d 43 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1974), and White v. Reserve Ins. Co., 299 So.2d 661 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1974). There should be an equitable distribution of the insurance funds in accordance with F.S. 627.736(3) (b) (1971) and these authorities.

The Third District has also endorsed equitable distribution under like circumstances, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Guillet, 294 So.2d 1 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974); Murray v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 287 So.2d 344 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973); State Farm Automobile Ins. Co. v. Hauser, 281 So.2d 563 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973); but has added a requirement that suit must have been filed in order to warrant equitable distribution. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Manee, 292 So.2d 52 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974). We do not subscribe to this requirement and hold equitable distribution does not depend upon the filing of suit. In so doing we align ourselves with the First District. See Catches v. Gov’t. Employees Ins. Co., supra.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C. J., WALDEN, J., and FAR-RINGTON, OTIS, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a trial court order requiring him to pay back 100% of the benefits he’d received from Reserve Insurance Company. The order was based upon the trial court’s interpretation of F.S. 627.736 (1971). We reverse and remand upon the authority of Catches v. Gov’t. Employees Ins. Co., 295 So.2d 116 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1974); Reyes v. Banks, 292 So.2d 39 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1974); Schwartz v. Hughey, 292 So.2d 43 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1974), and White v. Reserve Ins. Co., 299 So.2d 661 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1974). There should be an equitable distribution of the insurance funds in accordance with F.S. 627.736(3) (b) (1971) and these authorities.

The Third District has also endorsed equitable distribution under like circumstances, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Guillet, 294 So.2d 1 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974); Murray v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 287 So.2d 344 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973); State Farm Automobile Ins. Co. v. Hauser, 281 So.2d 563 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973); but has added a requirement that suit must have been filed in order to warrant equitable distribution. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Manee, 292 So.2d 52 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974). We do not subscribe to this requirement and hold equitable distribution does not depend upon the filing of suit. In so doing we align ourselves with the First District. See Catches v. Gov’t. Employees Ins. Co., supra.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C. J., WALDEN, J., and FAR-RINGTON, OTIS, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 So. 2d 876, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrera-v-gosnell-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack