EVA MARIE PATTON, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN B. PATTON, DECEASED, AND EVA MARIE PATTON, TRUSTEE AD LITEM FOR JOAN L. PATTON, CHARLES J. PATTON, PAUL A. PATTON, ALFRED J. PATTON AND MARY E. PATTON, MINORS, AND FOR EVA MARIE PATTON, WIDOW
v.
BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT, AND DUQUESNE SLAG PRODUCTS COMPANY
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.
In this workers' compensation case, the Florida Supreme Court held that a widow whose husband was killed in a work-related accident retains her right to continued workers' compensation benefits even after recovering from a third-party tortfeasor, subject only to the limited subrogation rights provided by statute. The court rejected the insurance carrier's argument that compensation ceased upon the widow's third-party recovery and the trial court's distribution order.
The widow's right to receive workers' compensation benefits under Section 440.16, F.S., was not destroyed by her recovery from the third party. She was entitled to the full benefits provided by statute, and the insurance carrier's right was limited to the subrogation rights specifically provided by statute, not to a complete cessation of benefits.
“In the absence of a law or a contract specifically providing for it, insurance companies do not have the right of subrogation against the party causing such injury.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that subrogation rights depend entirely on statute or contract, not on common law or general principles of insurance law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerbert Hoberman, an employee of Cushman Baking Company, was killed while driving a truck in the scope of his employment due to claimed negligence of …
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.
PER CURIAM.
This is the second appeal in this case. Our earlier opinion is reported 3 Cir., 197 F. 2d at page 732. That opinion sets out at length the nature of the problems presented. No useful purpose would be served here by a further statement of the facts. Upon remand a new trial was granted and a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, B. & O., and a judgment was rendered in favor of Duquesne, the third-party defendant, and against B. & O., D. C., 120 F.Supp. 659. No substantial new problem is presented by the second trial. A careful examination of the record and consideration of the briefs and of the oral argument of the parties convince us that the court below committed no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgments will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hinson v. United States, 257 F.2d 178 (5th Cir. 1958)
-
Cooner v. United States, 276 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1960)