Florida Patient's v. St. Paul Fire
Docket: 84-2471
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 6, 1986; Florida; State Appellate Court
The case involves the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund appealing a trial court's dismissal of its complaint for contribution against St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and others, based on a failure to meet statutory requirements outlined in section 768.31(4)(d)(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The background includes a medical malpractice settlement where the Fund agreed to pay $900,000 via a promissory note, while another insurer paid $100,000. The trial court determined that the promissory note did not constitute actual payment, leading to the dismissal of the Fund's claim with prejudice. The statute necessitates that a party seeking contribution must fully pay any liability and commence an action within one year of the agreement, a condition the Fund did not fulfill. The Fund argued that the promissory note satisfied the payment requirement; however, the Commissioner’s Comment on the statute indicated that actual payment is required, preventing claims based on installment agreements. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. The Legislature's adoption of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1985), indicates awareness of the commissioner's comment, as noted in State v. Aiuppa. When a Florida statute is modeled after a sister state's statute, it should be interpreted similarly to that prototype. The statute mandates that its provisions be construed to achieve uniformity across participating states. Therefore, section 768.31(4)(d)(2) should be interpreted to reflect the drafters' intent ratified by the Legislature. It is determined that a promissory note does not qualify as payment under this statute, leading to the trial court's proper dismissal with prejudice. Although the ruling may hinder the Fund's contribution efforts from co-tortfeasors, any necessary exemptions or legislative resolutions should come from the Legislature. The appellate order is affirmed, with concurrence from Judges Downey, Hurley, and Associate Judge Rivkind.