American Freight System, Inc. v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 82-2828
| Decision Date | 25 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2828,82-2828 |
| Citation | 453 So.2d 468 |
| Parties | AMERICAN FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., Appellant, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and Donald R. Thomas, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
T. Paine Kelly, Jr., of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellant.
Jonathan L. Alpert of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellees.
This appeal requires us to construe apparently conflicting provisions of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law and Florida's Motor Vehicle No-fault Law. Stated succinctly, the central question is, does the exclusivity provision of the Compensation Act, section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1983), prohibit the reimbursement of personal injury protection benefits pursuant to section 627.7405, Florida Statutes (1983), from an employer who has paid out full workmen's compensation benefits. We answer the question in the negative.
The facts are undisputed. Donald Thomas was injured in an automobile accident caused by the negligence of a hit and run driver while Thomas was operating a motor truck in the course and scope of his employment. Thomas brought suit against appellee seeking payment of personal injury protection benefits pursuant to his uninsured motorist coverage provided by appellee. Prior to a trial on the merits, appellee admitted that Thomas was entitled to the benefits in the sum of $10,000 and this amount was paid to Thomas.
Demand was then made by appellee upon appellant for reimbursement under section 627.7405. After appellant refused the demand, appellee filed this third party action. In answer to the third party complaint, appellant argued that the exclusive remedy of an employee against his employer is under the Compensation Act and that since appellant had paid full compensation benefits to Thomas it was not liable for any additional payment. Appellee subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court. This appeal timely ensued.
Section 440.11 reads in pertinent part as follows:
440.11 Exclusiveness of liability.--
(1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death.
Section 627.7405, on the other hand, provides that "any insurer providing personal injury protection benefits on a private passenger motor vehicle shall have ... a right of reimbursement against the owner or the insurer of the owner of a commercial motor vehicle if the benefits paid result from such person's having been an occupant of the commercial motor vehicle...."
Suffice it to say that no inconsistency between the statutes exists. The Workers' Compensation Act attempts to compensate an employee, without regard to fault, for the loss of wage-earning capacity due to work related injuries. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass'n v. McKaughan, BIRTH-RELATED
...construed to include only those subjects clearly embraced within its terms. See American Freight Sys. Inc. [v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.] 453 So.2d 468 [ (Fla.App. 2d Dist.1984) ]. Thus, just as under the Workers' Compensation At, a legal representative of an infant should ......
-
TUCKER TRANSP. CO. v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO., 1D03-5042.
...the operation of section 627.7405, accepting and applying the reasoning and holding in American Freight System, Inc. v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 453 So.2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The Court then concluded that section 627.7405 did not require a finding of fault and did not......