Florida Indus. Commission v. Yell for Pennell, Inc., 71--75

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation253 So.2d 918
PartiesFLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, f/u/b/o Florida Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Self-Insurers Fund, Appellant, v. YELL FOR PENNELL, INC., et al., Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 71--75,71--75
Decision Date21 September 1971

Page 918

253 So.2d 918
FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, f/u/b/o Florida Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Self-Insurers Fund, Appellant,
v.
YELL FOR PENNELL, INC., et al., Appellees.
No. 71--75.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 21, 1971.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1971.

Page 919

Moore, Welbaum, Zook & Jones, Miami, for appellant.

Herbert E. Kaufman and Leonard J. Kalish, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

For use and benefit of Florida Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Self-insurance Fund (herein referred to as the Fund), the Florida Industrial Commission (which has been succeeded by the State Department of Commerce, but will be referred to herein as the Commission), filed this action against numerous named plumbers and plumbing companies. In an amended complaint the plaintiff alleged creation of the fund under § 440.57 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., with a copy of the Fund contract attached, that the Fund obtained reinsurance from Florida Insurance Exchange to cover excess losses above stated amounts; that in 1967 the Florida Insurance Exchange hd become insolvent and been so adjudicated and placed in receivership; that thereby the Fund had become 'unable to meet its commitments to covered employees of the individual members of the Fund without the infusion of additional capital with which to pay claims'; that it became necessary for the trustees of the Fund to make an assessment against the (defendant) members thereof in order to raise money necessary to meet the obligations of the Fund and for it to continue to operate; that the assessment amounts for the several years involved were determined upon and apportioned to the members for each year (plus 30% To allow for costs of collection, and for uncollectable assessments); that a noticed meeting of the members of the Fund was held by the trustees of the Fund, at which 'those in attendance voted for assessments against all Fund members to the extent necessary to make up the deficits'; that thereafter all members for the years involved were so advised by the trustees by letter. The amounts of such assessments for the respective years were set out in the complaint, as was the apportionment thereof to the respective defendant members. It was alleged that certain such assessments to others (not joined) had been paid, and that assessments against certain persons had been determined...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT