Jorglewich v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jorglewich v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

522 So. 2d 114, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 769, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1117, 1988 WL 23656

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 24, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1352

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 522 So. 2d 114 (Jorglewich v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.) 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

Jorglewich v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 522 So. 2d 114, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 769, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1117, 1988 WL 23656 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

Appellant, a worker and a named insured under a personal injury protection (PIP) policy, was injured in the course of her employment and received 66% percent of her lost wages from her employer’s workers’ compensation carrier. Her claim for disability benefits under her PIP coverage was denied below and she appeals.

Under section 627.736(1)(b), Florida Statutes, a PIP insured is entitled to disability benefits of 60 per cent of lost gross income. However, under section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes, benefits received under workers’ compensation law must be credited against the PIP benefits provided in section 627.-736(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Appellant’s workers’ compensation benefits of 66% per cent of her lost wages exceed the PIP benefits of 60 per cent of lost gross income; therefore, she is entitled to no PIP benefits. Diaz v. South Carolina Insurance Company, 397 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

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

COWART, Judge.

Appellant, a worker and a named insured under a personal injury protection (PIP) policy, was injured in the course of her employment and received 66% percent of her lost wages from her employer’s workers’ compensation carrier. Her claim for disability benefits under her PIP coverage was denied below and she appeals.

Under section 627.736(1)(b), Florida Statutes, a PIP insured is entitled to disability benefits of 60 per cent of lost gross income. However, under section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes, benefits received under workers’ compensation law must be credited against the PIP benefits provided in section 627.-736(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Appellant’s workers’ compensation benefits of 66% per cent of her lost wages exceed the PIP benefits of 60 per cent of lost gross income; therefore, she is entitled to no PIP benefits. Diaz v. South Carolina Insurance Company, 397 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 So. 2d 114, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 769, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1117, 1988 WL 23656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jorglewich-v-lumbermens-mutual-casualty-co-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack