HomeMy WebLinkAbout0412 f
agreed to be paid shall be made to the Plaintiffs and its counsel
alone, free from any claim of lien, and the claim in this file is
hereby denied in its entirety, due to the severe losses sustained by }
both Mr. and Mrs. Picklesimer in this accident, and that in equity 1
this Court can award nv benefits back to the insurance carrier.
In making this conclusion and finding of fact, it is clear that
i
the Statute in effect on the date of the accident controls, and that
the Court has discretion to award a prorata share to the carrier in
a fair and reasonable amount, and in this case the Court finds that
the Plaintiffs herein failed to recover the full value of the damages
sustained because the limits of insurance coverage were woefully
inadequate, and that the Plaintiff has carried its burden of proof to
the Court and has demonstrated to the satisfaction of this Court that
the net proceeds are insufficient to allow or require any repayment
of compensation benefits under the facts and proof offered in this
case. The Court finally finds that the Supreme Court of Florida has
pointed out on many cases that there is no mathematical formula for
the determination of an equitable distribution in accordance with the
Statute in question, and that each case must turn upon its particular
facts and circumstances.
! The Court has found cases in which a substantial award has been
i
made and in which no award has been made. It is the finding of this
~ Court based upon the evidence in this case that in its sound discretion
4
this Court has a right, and a duty to the parties to this cause to ~
r
deny to the workmen's compensation carrier any claim for equitable
distribution. As pointed out in the case cited as U.S. Fidelity &
~ -
Guaranty Company v. Harb, App. 170 So. 2d 54 (1965)_ :
"As noted, the appellant concedes that the equitable distri-
bution by the court is a discretionary matter, but con-
tends that the failure to award anything to the carrier
constitutes an abuse of discretion. We concur that theCourt
in rendering an equitable distribution does act within
its discretion. See: Fidelity Casualty Company of New
York v. Bedinfield, Fla. 1952, 60 So.2d 489; Arex Indemnity
Company v.Radin, Fla. 1954, 72 So.2d. 393; Baughman v.
Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Fla. 1953, 78 So.2d.694;
Southern Farm Casualty Insurance Company v. Bennett, Fla.
App.1961, 131 So. 2d. 499; London & Lancashire Insurance
~ Company v. Failfield, Fla. App. 1961, 132 So.2d. 459;
333 ~~f 412
- _