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.
Provident Life & Accident Insurance v. Lewis
Citations: 709 So. 2d 587; 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3177; 1998 WL 145010Docket: No. 97-279
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 31, 1998; Florida; State Appellate Court
The case involves Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co. challenging the trial court's reimbursement determination after it was allowed to intervene in a personal injury case involving a minor. Initially, Provident sought to recover a pro rata share of the settlement proceeds, having paid $808,153.43 of the jury-awarded $980,000 for past medical expenses after a verdict of $7,146,000. Following a settlement of $3,000,000, which included attorney’s fees of $900,000 and costs of $19,493.78, the trial court incorrectly calculated Provident's reimbursement. According to Florida Statutes section 768.76(4), a provider with a right of subrogation is entitled to reimbursement limited to its pro rata share of the collateral sources provided, minus its share of the costs and fees incurred by the claimant. The trial court's calculation failed to correctly apply the proration of the settlement in relation to the jury verdict. The correct calculation determined Provident’s pro rata share to be $339,300, with an adjustment for attorney’s fees and costs totaling $103,903.50, leading to a final reimbursement amount of $235,304.50. Additionally, the trial court erroneously ruled that Provident could not recover any reimbursement from the annuity payments, citing a case (White v. Westlund) deemed inapplicable to the current situation. The court affirmed the denial of a set-off for Provident, clarifying that under section 768.76, a party can only claim set-offs based on amounts already paid or available from collateral sources. This case involves reimbursement rather than set-off, as Provident seeks reimbursement only for amounts already disbursed, not for future payments. The appellees received a $3,000,000 settlement, part of which was through an annuity, and they can choose to pay Provident from available funds or future annuity payments. The trial court is instructed to create a payment plan for Provident. Additionally, the trial court incorrectly denied Provident prejudgment interest; the appellees acknowledged Provident's entitlement but disputed the starting date for interest. Citing Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., the court reiterated that plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of loss. The jury awarded past medical costs, and the settlement proceeds were received in early 1992, at which point the appellees were aware of Provident's claim and could have calculated the owed amount. The continued litigation over the next four years does not render Provident's claim unliquidated. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's order, ruling that prejudgment interest should accrue from the date the appellees received the settlement proceeds, and any unpaid balance from annuity payments would also accrue interest. The judges DELL and KLEIN concurred with this decision.