STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. v. FRANK E. MILLER, JR.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D02-5149 v. FRANK E. MILLER, JR., Respondent. __________________________/ Opinion filed December 18, 2003. Petition for Writ Certiorari - Original Jurisdiction. Raymond L. Roebuck and David M. Gagnon, of Taylor, Day & Currie, Jacksonville, for Petitioner. Kevin J. Loftus, of Harrell & Johnson, P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondent. BROWNING, J. Respondent, who was involved in an automobile accident that occurred during the course and scope of his employment, was paid 66-2/3 % of his lost wages under Florida s workers compensation scheme. Thereafter, Respondent filed a claim with Petitioner for reimbursement under his personal injury protection (PIP) policy. Petitioner denied the claim. The county court ordered Petitioner to pay 60 % of the difference between Respondent s total lost wages and Respondent s total workers compensation payments. The circuit court affirmed. We grant the petition for writ of certiorari because both lower courts failed to correctly apply the applicable newer version of section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2000), as interpreted by the district courts in Diaz v. South Carolina Insurance Co., 397 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and Jorglewich v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 522 So. 2d 114, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Under these circumstances, certiorari review is proper pursuant to Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (stating that an interpretation or application of a statute, a procedural rule, or a constitutional provision may be the basis for granting certiorari review). Therefore, we QUASH the decision under review and grant the petition, WITH DIRECTIONS that the circuit court reverse the county court's summary judgment and remand to the county court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., CONCUR. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
