Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roth
| Decision Date | 20 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--1000,68--1000 |
| Citation | 222 So.2d 768 |
| Parties | HARDWARE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Howard ROTH, individually and as next friend of his son, Neal Allen Roth, a minor, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rose & Marlow, Miami, for appellant.
Horton & Schwartz, Sams, Anderson, Alper & Spencer, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant, a compensation carrier, seeks review of an order of equitable distribution entered by the trial court pursuant to § 440.39(3)(a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The original third party tort action was settled. The amount of the compromise settlement was $200,000.00 to the injured minor employee and $50,000.00 to the father of the minor, who had the responsibility for medical expenses.
The appellant urges that the trial court erred in permitting it to recover only $2,000.00 when it had medical expenses in excess of $34,000.00, urging that this court should adopt as a guideline the philosophy that a compensation carrier can recover the full amount of its medical expense against any liability settlement that covers this item, if necessary up to 100% Of the settlement less a proportionate amount for costs and attorney's fees. We reject this argument, in light of the statute vesting the discretion for equitable division in a trial court.
If guidelines are to be set to aid a trial court in this distribution, they should be affixed by the Legislature. This is particularly so in light of the fact that ordinarily a compensation carrier cannot receive any reimbursement from a claimant. This only happens when a third party action is commenced.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed upon the authority of Arex Indemnity Company v. Radin, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 393; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Harb, Fla.App.1964, 170 So.2d 54; Security Mutual Casualty Company v. Grice, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 834; Luby Chevrolet, Inc. v. Foster, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 510.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. Banks, 73--484
...been determined by the courts of this state wherein the equitable distribution principle has been applied. See Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. v. Roth, 222 So.2d 768 (Fla.App.1969); Reznick v. Schwartz, 219 So.2d 713 (Fla.App.1969); Zurich Insurance Co. v. Renton, 189 So.2d 492 (Fla.App.1966)......
-
White v. Reserve Ins. Co.
...been determined by the courts of this state wherein the equitable distribution principle has been applied. See Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. v. Roth, 222 So.2d 768 (Fla.App.1969); Reznick v. Schwartz, 219 So.2d 713 (Fla.App.1969); Zurich Insurance Co. v. Renton, 189 So.2d 492 (Fla.App.1966)......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Beach
...exactitude (which we do not here hold: See Arex Indemnity Co. v. Radin, Sup.Ct.Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 393; Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. v. Roth, Fla.App. 3rd 1969, 222 So.2d 768; Reyes v. Banks, supra) we would nevertheless be here without the primary figure required for application of the App......
-
Employers Ins. Management Corp. v. Torres
...CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Arex Indemnity Co. v. Radin, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 393; Hardware Mutual Insurance Company v. Roth, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 768. ...