Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bruner v. Caterpillar, Inc.
Citations: 627 So. 2d 46; 1993 WL 468519Docket: 92-2237
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 11, 1993; Florida; State Appellate Court
Appellants Michael E. Bruner and Kathy C. Bruner appealed a civil case against appellees Caterpillar, Inc. and Burford Equipment Company. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, found the appellants' arguments without merit. Caterpillar cross-appealed regarding the denial of a collateral source offset under section 768.76, Florida Statutes, linked to Michael Bruner's workers' compensation benefits. The court determined that although the workers' compensation insurer had a statutory subrogation right under section 440.39(2), it did not claim such an interest in the workers' compensation settlement. Caterpillar's liability in the civil case remained unaffected by the private settlement of the workers' compensation claim. The court concluded that a collateral source offset was not permissible, as section 768.76 does not grant a tortfeasor benefits from a plaintiff's settlement with a third party when a subrogation waiver is involved. The court affirmed the denial of the offset request, with Judges Barfield and Booth concurring. Judge Booth elaborated that the existence of the statutory subrogation right, rather than its exercise, barred the offset entitlement. He emphasized that the statutes aim to ensure that an injured party does not receive more or less than full recovery. Allowing Caterpillar to benefit from the negotiated waiver would contradict the statutes' purpose, and the argument of potential double recovery was deemed unfounded.