DIANA DOUGLAS, PETITIONER,
v.
IOWA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1982-01-21
No. 60884
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
409 So. 2d 1029 Florida Supreme Court (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

An uninsured motorist carrier may not automatically set off PIP/MedPay benefits from UM coverage, but can set off benefits reimbursing the same damages.


Facts & Procedural History

The First District Court of Appeal certified its opinion as conflicting with other district court decisions regarding uninsured motorist coverage seto…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal, reported as Douglas v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), in which that court certified its opinion to be in direct conflict with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Bergman, 387 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and American Service Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 323 So. 2d 645 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). We accepted jurisdiction in accordance with article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

This Court, subsequent to those decisions, resolved the conflict in Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Lackore, 408 So. 2d 1040 (Fla.1982), holding that an uninsured motorist carrier may not automatically set off from its uninsured motorist coverage the amount of personal injury protection and medical payment benefits available to the insured but can set off benefits available to the insured which would reimburse him for the same damages. This holding is contrary to the district court’s decision in the instant case. We therefore disappove the district court’s decision and remand for proceedings consistent with our decision in Lackore.

It is so ordered. SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Piatt, 417 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
    …the trial court’s refusal to permit a set-off of PIP payment, made previously under this policy. There is no showing of duplication of benefits and, therefore, the trial court’s ruling was correct. Douglas v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Company, 409 So. 2d 1029 (Fla.1982); Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Lackore, 408 So. 2d 1040 (Fla.1982). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw