Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. U-Haul Co. of Eastern Florida

• Decision Date: 25 October 1989
• Docket Number: U-HAUL,No. 88-1997,88-1997
• Citation: 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2511,551 So.2d 580
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2511 STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY serviced by Crawford & Company, and Taylor Rental, Appellants, v.COMPANY OF EASTERN FLORIDA and Aetna Life & Casualty Company and James Read, Appellees.

Page 580

551 So.2d 580

14 Fla. L. Weekly 2511

STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY serviced by Crawford & Company, and Taylor Rental, Appellants, v. U-HAUL COMPANY OF EASTERN FLORIDA and Aetna Life & Casualty Company and James Read, Appellees.

No. 88-1997.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

Oct. 25, 1989.

Mathew D. Staver and Richard S. Thompson of Zimmerman, Shuffield, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.

Daniel De Ciccio and J. Brian Hurt of De Ciccio & Broussard, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.

SMITH, Judge.

In this appeal and cross-appeal from a workers' compensation order, Standard Fire Insurance Company and Taylor Rental, appeal the deputy's order to reimburse U-Haul Company of Eastern Florida for benefits paid to claimant James Read. U-Haul has filed a cross-appeal arguing that the deputy erred in her apportionment of liability between the two employers. We affirm the issue presented on appeal, but reverse on the issue presented on cross-appeal.

While working for U-Haul, the claimant injured his back. The accident was accepted as compensable, and the claimant was paid wage loss and medical benefits. Claimant reached MMI on January 13, 1987, with eighteen percent permanent impairment, ten percent of which was attributable to a preexisting condition. The claimant was released with some medical restrictions.

Claimant was later employed by Taylor Rental Company, and on March 3, 1987, he reinjured his back during the course of that employment. The claimant eventually reached MMI and was found to be permanently impaired by an additional two percent. Following this second accident, the claimant sought benefits from both employers. U-Haul paid temporary total disability benefits for the period of May 1 through August 6, 1987. Taylor Rental paid medical benefits for a time, and then settled with the claimant for a lump sum. This settlement was approved by the deputy.

The claimant filed for benefits with U-Haul for benefits attendant to the first accident on November 25, 1987, two years after the first accident occurred. U-Haul sought a hearing on the requested medical and wage loss benefits, and further sought reimbursement from Taylor Rental for benefits paid since March 3, 1987. U-Haul also sought apportionment of the benefits with Taylor Rental.

Following a hearing, the deputy entered an order requiring Taylor Rental to reimburse U-Haul for benefits paid from May 1 through November 4, 1987. She further ordered apportionment of future medical benefits to the extent that U-Haul was to pay 80% and Taylor Rental 20%. The deputy found that reimbursement was appropriate due to the fact that Taylor Rental had received notice from U-Haul's counsel of the claimant's first accident and of the fact that claimant had received benefits therefrom. Despite notice of this accident, Taylor Rental settled with the claimant without conferring with U-Haul and without inquiring into the extent of benefits already paid.

On appeal, Taylor Rental argues that the order of reimbursement conflicts with the terms of its settlement agreement with the...