BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD UNITED OF WISCONSIN, APPELLANT,
v.
INVERRARY HOTEL CORP., D/B/A HILTON HOTEL, AND D/B/A HILTON INN & CONFERENCE CENTER AT INVERRARY, APPELLEE
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.
Blue Cross sought subrogation recovery against a hotel for medical benefits paid to its insured after a slip and fall injury. The court affirmed summary judgment for the hotel, holding that Blue Cross cannot assert subrogation rights greater than those of its insured, who had settled and dismissed her claim against the hotel.
Blue Cross is barred from asserting a subrogation claim against the hotel because it can only stand in the shoes of its insured, and the insured cannot prevail in a subsequent action after accepting a settlement and stipulating to dismissal. An insurer acquires no greater rights than its insured under subrogation principles.
[1] An insurer asserting a subrogation claim "stands in the shoes" of its insured and is subject to the same conditions and limitations as the insured.
[2] An insurer is subrogated to no greater rights than those held by its insured.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Her insurer, by its contract with her, acquired no greater rights”
Establishes the core principle that an insurer's subrogation rights are limited to those of the insured
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMildred Burstein was injured in a slip and fall at Inverrary Hotel. Blue Cross paid medical benefits to Burstein under its insurance policy. Burstein …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Collateral Source Payments cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We affirm a summary final judgment for the defendant, Inverrary Hotel, on a subrogation claim brought by Blue Cross for medical benefits paid to its insured, Mildred Burstein. The insured was injured in a slip and fall at the hotel.
Blue Cross had a right to seek reimbursement by subrogation under its policy for sums paid to its insured. Several years earlier Burstein sued the hotel for her injuries and in that action Blue Cross filed a “claim of lien”. Subsequently, Blue Cross sought leave to intervene in that case but before its motion was heard the case was settled and dismissed. As a result, the trial court in that case granted a Burstein motion to dismiss an unserved Blue Cross pleading for lack of jurisdiction. No appeal was taken by Blue Cross. Subsequently, Blue Cross brought this independent action on the subrogated claim against the hotel alone.
The hotel asserts that Blue Cross is not entitled to subrogation following the settlement and dismissal, and that, during the two year pendency of the first action, Blue Cross sat on its rights, failed to seek an equitable distribution of the proceeds, untimely sought intervention and failed to appeal the dismissal of its claim.
The trial court properly determined that Blue Cross was barred from a subrogation claim against the hotel which would have resulted in a double payment. Blue Cross did not intervene in the first suit, and it can only assert a subrogation claim by “standing in the shoes” of its insured. Here, it is clear that Burstein could not prevail in a subsequent action against the hotel after accepting the settlement, signing all settlement documents and stipulating to dismissal of the first suit. Her insurer, by its contract with her, acquired no greater rights, E.g., Jones v. Bradley, 366 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
See also Florida Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fla. Fruit & Vegetable Ass’n, 436 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Cook Motor Co. v. Vaughn, 189 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).
In Jones, this court stated, the insurer “must exercise such rights under the same conditions and limitations as were binding on the creditor [subrogor], and hence, can be subrogated to no greater rights than one in whose place he has substituted.”
Because we recognize that, in the absence of statutory or other authority, the insurer may not force the third party to pay twice for the same expenses in a claim founded purely on subrogation, there is no need to address the other issues argued. Subrogation is the sole basis for appellant’s claim and no tort or statutory lien claims against the hotel are involved. We also note that section 627.7372, Florida Statutes, the Tort Reform Act, which provides for the reduction of a claim against a tortfeasor by the amount of collateral source payments under certain circumstances, was inapplicable here and that the unauthorized claim of lien filed by appellant in the first action was of no legal effect.
Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
We find nothing in Jack Eckerd Corp. v. Williamson Cadillac Leasing, Inc., 507 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1987) or Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. v. Matthews, 498 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1986), or the other authorities relied on by appellant, recognizing subrogation rights of health care insurers, to be inconsistent with this position.
ANSTEAD, J., and FENNELLY, JOHN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lincoln Nat'l Health & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales OF Am., Inc., 666 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…[tortfeasors], he could no longer assert any claim against them arising out of the automobile accident. Appellee stands in the shoes of its insured and can have no greater rights, Blue Cross/Blue Shield United of Wisconsin v. Inverrary Hotel Corp., 579 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) and thus is likewise barred by the release. We think the law is clear that if one who sustains the loss as the result of negligence or wrongdoing of another releases the tort-feasor, an insurer subrogated to the right of the inju…
-
High v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 619 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…the appellants, he could no longer assert any claim against them arising out of the automobile accident. Appellee stands in the shoes of its insured and can have no greater rights, Blue Cross/Blue Shield United of Wisconsin v. Inverrary Hotel Corp., 579 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) and thus is likewise barred by the release. We think the law is clear that if one who sustains loss as a result of negligence or wrongdoing of another releases the tortfeasor, an insurer subrogated to the right of the injured par…
-
Kenyon Roofing & Aluminum Co., Inc. v. August Koedding, 651 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…[*250] FASTRACK APPEAL PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Blue Cross/Blue Shield United of Wisconsin v. Inverrary Hotel Corp., 579 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 535 So. 2d 335, 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), approved, 559 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1990). STONE, PARIENTE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc. v. Matthews, 498 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1986)
- Cook Motor Co. v. Vaughn, 189 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Jones v. Bradley, 366 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fla. Fruit & Vegetable Ass'n, 436 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- THE Florida BAR v. Gromet, 507 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1987)