Zurich-American Insurance Co. v. Lewis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zurich-American Insurance Co. v. Lewis

570 So. 2d 1136, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9293, 1990 WL 198429

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 1990

DocketNo. 89-3072

StatusPublished

This text of 570 So. 2d 1136 (Zurich-American Insurance Co. v. Lewis) 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

Zurich-American Insurance Co. v. Lewis, 570 So. 2d 1136, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9293, 1990 WL 198429 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge.

Worker’s compensation carrier seeks review of the trial court’s determination of: the lien amount; the formula utilized to determine the lien entitlement; an interest deduction; and no allowance on future benefits paid. We affirm the findings of the trial judge as to the amount of the lien. We also affirm the formula used by the trial judge, which resulted in a lien entitlement determination of 6.3%. Nikula v. Michigan Mut. Ins., 531 So.2d 330 (Fla.1988), and Employer’s Cas. Ins. Co. v. Manfredo, 542 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), approved, 560 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1990). However, the court erred in awarding interest because of an alleged delay in establishing the amount of the lien and in failing to provide for a reduction of 6.3% as to future benefits. § 440.39(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983).

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court except for the award of interest and the failure to make an allowance for reduction of any future benefits paid.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.

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

RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge.

Worker’s compensation carrier seeks review of the trial court’s determination of: the lien amount; the formula utilized to determine the lien entitlement; an interest deduction; and no allowance on future benefits paid. We affirm the findings of the trial judge as to the amount of the lien. We also affirm the formula used by the trial judge, which resulted in a lien entitlement determination of 6.3%. Nikula v. Michigan Mut. Ins., 531 So.2d 330 (Fla.1988), and Employer’s Cas. Ins. Co. v. Manfredo, 542 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), approved, 560 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1990). However, the court erred in awarding interest because of an alleged delay in establishing the amount of the lien and in failing to provide for a reduction of 6.3% as to future benefits. § 440.39(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983).

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court except for the award of interest and the failure to make an allowance for reduction of any future benefits paid.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 So. 2d 1136, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9293, 1990 WL 198429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zurich-american-insurance-co-v-lewis-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack