Great Am. Indem. Co. v. Williams
| Decision Date | 22 February 1956 |
| Parties | GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Doretha WILLIAMS, James E. Battle, Sonja Melissa Williams, Audrey FayeWilliams, and The Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Samuel Kassewitz, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Norman P. Freedman, Jacksonville, for respondents Doretha Williams, James E. Battle and Sonja Melissa Williams.
Ernest J. Jacobs, Jacksonville, for respondent Audrey Faye Williams.
Burnis T. Coleman and Rodney Durrance, Tallahassee, for respondent Florida Industrial Commission.
This is a petition for certiorari to review an order of Florida Industrial Commission affirming an order of the Deputy Commissioner awarding the claimants' attorneys fees in the amount of $900 for representing them (claimants) before the Deputy Commissioner. Said attorneys were also allowed fees in the sum of $600 for representing claimants before the full Commission in the same cause growing out of the following facts:
December 11, 1953, Arthur J. Williams sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment from which he died the same day. Four days after his death, the carrier secured a statement from the 'alleged wife' (Doretha Williams) of the deceased, in which she said she was married to him in January, 1951, and that they separated in October, 1951. She also stated that she and deceased had one child, Audrey Faye Williams, born in 1950 prior to their marriage. It was subsequently shown, and found by the Deputy Commissioner, that the deceased and Doretha had another child born October 12, 1952, more than a year after the deceased and Doretha separated. The birth certificate of the latter child, Sonja Williams, does not show the name of the father. Doretha Williams also testified that she had a son, James E. Battle, born in 1947, and that the deceased had not contributed to her support or the support of said son since they were separated. She also testified that she and the deceased had not secured a divorce and so far as she knew, no proceedings had been instituted for one.
December 23, 1953, after investigation, the carrier wrote the Florida Industrial Commission as follows:
'This is to advise you that we stand ready and willing to pay compensation in connection with the above fatal case, which arises out of an accident which occurred on December 11, 1953.
'It will be necessary for the Florida Industrial Commission to determine the proper beneficiary or beneficiaries to receive payment of compensation, and this is a request that they proceed to the necessary investigation for the purpose of determining that question.
'We shall appreciate your instructions and advices.'
It is quite evident from the language in the letter, 'We stand ready and willing to pay compensation,' that the carrier admits liability but it contends that the investigation and determination of the lawful beneficiary is the function of the Industrial Commission and therefore the burden of attorneys fees should not be placed upon it. December 30, 1953, the Director of the Commission acknowledged receipt of the quoted letter but denied that it was the responsibility of the Industrial Commission to investigate and determine the lawful beneficiaries. He contends to the contrary that such responsibility was on the adjusters for the insurance carrier. The Director then requested the carrier to investigate the matter and submit such information to the Deputy Commissioner as would enable him to determine the lawful beneficiaries and the order or preference, if any, including the amount of compensation that should be made to them.
On May 14, and June 7, 1954, after due notice, hearings were held before the Deputy Commissioner. No compensation was paid to claimants during this period. The attorneys for the claimants and the attorney for the carrier appeared at these hearings and participated in them. Counsel for the carrier not only participated but filed in evidence various exhibits. Most of said hearings involved adversary matters among the various claimants to establish their right to compensation under the act. The mother of the deceased, Hattie Haywood, also represented by counsel, testified that the deceased supported her and contributed to the support of Audrey Faye Williams who was in her custody. The carrier did not controvert the lawful claims but expressed willingness to pay compensation to those whom the Deputy Commissioner found rightfully entitled to it.
The Deputy Commissioner found that Doretha Williams was the widow of the deceased, that she was dependent upon him for support but that she was living apart from him for justifiable cause at the time of his death. The Deputy Commissioner also found that James E. Battle was the stepchild of the deceased and that he was dependent upon deceased for support and was entitled to compensation. He further found that Sonja Williams and Audrey Williams were children of Doretha and deceased and that they were entitled to compensation. The Deputy Commissioner further found that the mother of deceased was dependent upon him for support but account of the limits of 60% as set forth in Section 440.16, F.S., F.S.A., he did not award her any compensation. He accordingly awarded the widow 35% of the average weekly wage and each child 8 1/3% of the average weekly wage the result being that the widow will receive $12.88 per week, and each child will receive $3.06 per week. The reason for setting forth these amounts it to show that they are so inordinately small that to impose the attorneys fees upon the claimants would work such hardship on them as to defeat the real purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Having disposed of the question of compensation, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to the more difficult question of awarding attorneys fees to the successful claimants' attorneys. He concluded that under Section 440.34, F.S., F.S.A., attorneys for the successful claimants were entitled to compensation and that their fees should be paid by the carrier. He based this finding on the holding that it was incumbent upon the carrier and not the Industrial Commission to make the investigation. When Section 440.20(8), F.S., F.S.A., is read in conjunction with Section 440.16, F.S., F.S.A., said the Deputy Commissioner, this conclusion is evident. The Deputy Commissioner concluded that a reasonable fee for both attorneys representing the successful claimants would be $900. On appeal to the full Commission, the finding of the Deputy Commissioner was affirmed on a two to one judgment.
The sole question before the full Commission was that of attorneys fees. The full Commission held that since the carrier 'declined' to pay the claims on or before the 21st day after notice, Section 440.34(1), F.S., F.S.A., was activated and accordingly entitled the successful claimants' attorneys to a reasonable fee. The full Commission further held that the essential feature tof the Workmen's Compensation Act was its self-executing framework and that the benefits under it were intended to pass directly from the carrier to the beneficiary. In effect it construed Section 440.16, F.S., F.S.A., to mean that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldman v. Campbell
...to attorneys fees stretches back decades — and in one sense even centuries. Nearly fifty years ago, in Great American Indemnity Co. v. Williams, 85 So.2d 619, 623 (Fla.1956), the court said: "the of attorneys fees is in derogation of common law and that acts for that purpose should be const......
-
City of Miami v. Granlund
...Alexander v. Peoples Ice Co., Fla.1955, 85 So.2d 846; Bailey's Auto Service v. Mitchell, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 228; Great American Indemnity Co. v. Williams, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 619; Webb v. Perini, Walsh, Mills & Blythe Bros., 2 FCR 9 (1956); McCall v. Motor Fuel Carriers, Fla.1945, 155 Fla. 8......
-
Sunbeam Enterprises, Inc. v. Upthegrove
...for Use and Benefit of Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Cauthen, 152 Fla. 420, 12 So.2d 294 (1943); Great American Indemnity Co. v. Williams et al., 85 So.2d 619 (Fla.1956); Kittel v. Kittel, 210 So.2d 1 (Fla.1968); Stone v. Jeffres, 208 So.2d 827 (Fla.1968). See also, Jackson v. Hatch, ......
-
Colvin v. State Dept. of Transp., 45091
...a known factor involved which indicated a greater disability rating than had been recognized. Claimant cites Great American Indemnity Co. v. Williams, 85 So.2d 619 (Fla.1956), holding that employer must accept claimant within the time period specified and that if this cannot be done until c......
-
Chase v. Walgreen Company: expanding employee protection against employer retaliation in workers' compensation law.
...v. Hamm, 414 So. 2d 1071, 1073 (Fla. 1982) (citation omitted). [11] FLA. STAT. ch. 440 (1999). [12] See Great Am. Indem. Co. v. Williams, 85 So. 2d 619 [13] Barnett Banks, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 738 So. 2d 502, 504 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1999) (quoting Department of Revenue v. American Te......