International Sales-Rentals Leasing Co. v. Nearhoof

• Citation: 263 So.2d 569
• Decision Date: 07 June 1972
• Docket Number: 41654,Nos. 41659,SALES-RENTALS,s. 41659
• Parties: INTERNATIONALLEASING CO., a Florida corporation, and Seaboard Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Ocean Reef Club, Petitioners, v. Peggy Ann NEARHOOF, a minor, et al., Respondents. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Peggy Ann NEARHOOF, a minor, et al., Respondents.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

Page 569

263 So.2d 569

INTERNATIONAL SALES-RENTALS LEASING CO., a Florida corporation, and Seaboard Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Ocean Reef Club, Petitioners, v. Peggy Ann NEARHOOF, a minor, et al., Respondents.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Peggy Ann NEARHOOF, a minor, et al., Respondents.

Nos. 41659, 41654.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 7, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1972, in No. 41654.

David L. Willing, of Adams, George & Wood, Miami, for International Sales-Rentals Leasing Co., etc., et al., petitioners.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings, Miami, for Government Employees Ins. Co., petitioner.

Daniel V. Ligman, Coral Gables, and James C. Shepherd, Miami, for Peggy Ann Nearhoof, etc., et al., respondents.

ERVIN, Justice.

We consider here two petitions for writs of certiorari to review decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in the consolidated cases of Nearhoof vs. International Sales-Rentals Leasing Company (Case No. 41,659) and Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) vs. Nearhoof (Case No. 41,654). See 251 So.2d 717.

Case No. 41,659 involves the question whether F.S. Section 768.041, F.S.A., gives a joint tortfeasor defendant a set-off equal to the amount of the recovery an injured plaintiff receives from the carrier of his uninsured motorist coverage.

Case No. 41,654 involves the question whether a carrier's uninsured motorist subrogation rights provided by statute (Section 627.0851(4), F.S.1969) extend to a recovery obtained by its insured from a joint tortfeasor.

We answer the question in Case No. 41,659 in the negative and the question in Case No. 41,654 in the affirmative, as hereinafter explained.

Following a serious three-car accident on May 14, 1968, Respondents Nearhoof filed a suit against International Sales-Rentals Leasing Co., petitioner in Case No. 41,659, the owner of one of the vehicles in the collision. They also filed an uninsured motorist claim against their own carrier (Petitioner GEICO, Case No. 41,654) for injuries caused by the negligence of the uninsured driver of the third car. It was the Nearhoofs' contention that their injuries were caused by the negligence of joint tortfeasors.

The uninsured motorist claim was settled for $19,500. The Nearhoofs signed a release and trust agreement containing the statement that:

'(W)e . . . agree to hold in trust for the benefit of the Company (GEICO) all rights, claims, and causes of action which (we) have or may have against the person or persons or organization legally responsible in whole or in part for the injuries and damages sustained by the injured arising from this accident.'

In reliance upon this agreement, GEICO intervened in the Nearhoofs' action against International. The jury awarded the Nearhoofs $70,500; GEICO moved to recover approximately $19,500 from that judgment. The trial court denied GEICO's motion, saying, 'a carrier's uninsured motorist subrogation rights do not extend to a recovery obtained from insured joint tortfeasors, such as the Defendants (International, et al.) in this case.' The trial court did, however, grant International a set-off of $19,500 against the $70,500 awarded the Nearhoofs.

The Nearhoofs appealed the set-off and GEICO appealed the denial of its subrogation motion. The District Court of Appeal consolidated the appeals; reversed the trial court's granting of the set-off, and concluded that uninsured motorist coverage is equivalent to a separate contract such as hospitalization insurance so that recovery thereunder may not be set-off from a judgment against a tortfeasor. (This decision is being reviewed in No. 41,659.) The District Court affirmed, however, the trial court's denial of GEICO's subrogation request. (This portion of the DCA decision is being reviewed in No. 41,654.)

We agree with and adopt the view of the District Court of Appeal in Case No. 41,659. However, insofar as concerns the recovery of the Nearhoofs of $70,500 from International Sales-Rentals Leasing Company, a joint tortfeasor in the Nearhoof accident, it is our view that Government Employees Insurance Company is entitled to be subrogated as intervenor to the extent of the amounts it paid the Nearhoofs as their uninsured motorist's carrier. We conclude subrogation in the $70,500 recovery was intended by ...