Ohio Casualty Group v. Parrish

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ohio Casualty Group v. Parrish

260 So. 2d 550, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6995

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 4, 1972

DocketNos. 71-1017, 71-1018

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 260 So. 2d 550 (Ohio Casualty Group v. Parrish) 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

Ohio Casualty Group v. Parrish, 260 So. 2d 550, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6995 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals are from the same order of equitable proration which apportioned the amount of a personal injury settlement agreement pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 440.39, F.S.A. The appellant is the workmen’s compensation carrier for the injured minor appellee.

Three points are argued. The first urges that the order must be reversed because the procedure followed in the trial court was improper. We agree that the procedure was not in accord with the statute and the case law concerning the subject; nevertheless, we hold that no reversible error has been demonstrated since the appellant participated without objection in ■the conference, which served as a substitute for the prescribed hearing. Appellant stipulated with appellees to submit the matter to the trial judge without formal proceedings. Appellees substantially changed their positions in reliance upon appellant’s apparent agreement to that procedure. Appellant is now estopped to change its position simply because it is dissatisfied with the result. See Jones v. Life Insurance Company of Florida, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 889; Walker v. Narose Bldgs., Inc., Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 400.

[551]*551Appellant’s second and third points essentially question the amount of the apportionment. No error is shown. See Hardware Mutual Insurance Company v. Roth, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 768.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals are from the same order of equitable proration which apportioned the amount of a personal injury settlement agreement pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 440.39, F.S.A. The appellant is the workmen’s compensation carrier for the injured minor appellee.

Three points are argued. The first urges that the order must be reversed because the procedure followed in the trial court was improper. We agree that the procedure was not in accord with the statute and the case law concerning the subject; nevertheless, we hold that no reversible error has been demonstrated since the appellant participated without objection in ■the conference, which served as a substitute for the prescribed hearing. Appellant stipulated with appellees to submit the matter to the trial judge without formal proceedings. Appellees substantially changed their positions in reliance upon appellant’s apparent agreement to that procedure. Appellant is now estopped to change its position simply because it is dissatisfied with the result. See Jones v. Life Insurance Company of Florida, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 889; Walker v. Narose Bldgs., Inc., Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 400.

[551]*551Appellant’s second and third points essentially question the amount of the apportionment. No error is shown. See Hardware Mutual Insurance Company v. Roth, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 768.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 So. 2d 550, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-casualty-group-v-parrish-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack