Employers Ins. Co. of Ala. v. Miller, 60-131
| Decision Date | 21 July 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 60-131,60-131 |
| Citation | 121 So.2d 813 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ALABAMA, Appellant, v. Frank MILLER, Waco Scaffolding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, Waco Manufacturing Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees. |
Wakefield & Underwood, Miami, for appellant.
Nichols, Gaither, Green, Frates & Beckham and Sam Daniels, Miami, for Frank Miller.
Brown, Dean, Adams & Fischer, Miami, for Waco Scaffolding of Florida, Inc.
Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, Miami, for Waco Mfg. Co.
The appellant, a workmen's compensation insurance carrier, appeals from an order of equitable distribution made after recovery by the employee in a personal injury tort action against third-party tort-feasors. The trial judge awarded the compensation carrier the sum of $1,500 as a pro rata share of the employee's recovery. The carrier filed a first amended notice of compensation lien on October 9, 1958, in the personal injury action. The settlement was effected by the employee and recovery had after July 1, 1959. The order of equitable distribution was made January 5, 1960.
The appellant makes two contentions for reversal, i. e., (1) that the amount of $1,500 awarded as pro rata recovery in an equitable distribution proceedings under § 440.39, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., was an abuse of discretion by the trial judge; and (2) that the trial judge failed to give effect to the provisions of § 440.39(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., as amended, which became effective July 1, 1959.
We have considered the contentions raised by the appellant and find them to be without merit. As to the first contention, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial judge abused his discretion in awarding the sum of $1,500, especially when it is considered that no particular yardstick or formula for computation was prescribed in § 440.39, supra, but left it in the discretion of the court to determine. It has not been demonstrated that the amount awarded in this instance was not equitable or adequate. See Arex Indemnity Co. v. Radin, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 393.
As to the second question raised, it should be pointed out that the employee was injured in 1957; the compensation lien of the carrier was filed in 1958, and the settlement and recovery had in 1959. This question we feel has already been answered adverse to the appellant's contention by the Supreme Court of this state in Hecht v. Parkinson, Fla...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C & T Erectors, Inc. v. Case
...as it was amended in 1977. 2 Id.; Aaron v. Florida Power & Light Co., 126 So.2d 889 (Fla.3d DCA 1961); Employers Insurance Company of Alabama v. Miller, 121 So.2d 813 (Fla.3d DCA 1960). The statute in that form contemplates that once the attorney's fee and costs stemming from the third part......
-
Security Mut. Cas. Co. v. Grice, 4766
...with or approaches actual compensation outlay. See Arex Indemnity Co. v. Radin, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 393; Employers Insurance Co. of Alabama v. Miller [Fla.App., 121 So.2d 813], supra. 'Such a discrepancy between the two sub-sections as to amounts allowed to be recovered by the carrier is sim......
-
General Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Moore
...F.S.A. the law in effect at the time of the injury to Moore. See Hecht v. Parkinson, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 505; Employers' Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Miller, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 813; Aaron v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fal.App.1961, 126 So.2d Said subsection (4) reads: '(4) If the injured empl......
-
Aaron v. Florida Power & Light Co., 60-211
...the law in existence at the time of the injury applied. This court followed that pronunciation in the case of Employers' Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Miller, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 813, where the factual situation was quite similar to the case at bar. In affirming an order pro-rating the share o......