Alexander v. Seaquest Inc., 575 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Alexander v. Seaquest Inc., 575 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“he apportionment of a settlement comes too late if done after the jury verdict because the non-settling tortfeasors lose their right to settle, thus frustrating the purpose of section 768.31(5), florida statutes 1987.”
13 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Escadote I Corp. v. Ocean Three Limited Partnership (fladistctapp, 2016-12-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Escadote I Corp. v. Ocean Three Limited Partnership (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
he apportionment of a settlement comes too late if done after the jury verdict because the non-settling tortfeasors lose their right to settle, thus frustrating the purpose of section 768.31(5), florida statutes 1987.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. JEFFREY H. WOLFSON
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Id. at 1348, 1350-51 ; see also Cornerstone, 163 So. 3d at 569 (“Where a settlement is undifferentiated and general, the aggregate of the amount of the settlement should be set off against the judgment.”); Alexander v. Seaquest, Inc., 575 So. 2d 765, 765-66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (where a private and unilateral settlement apportionment occurred without notice, “[t]he trial judge properly set-off the undifferentiated lump sum settlement against the total jury award in order to ensure that appellant did not recover twice for the same wrong”). 2.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McDermott Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Clyde Iron, Amclyde, a Division of Amca International, Inc., and River Don Casting Ltd., Cross-Appellees
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See King Cotton, Ltd. v. Powers, 200 Ga.App. 549 , 409 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1991); see also Alexander v. Seaquest Inc., 575 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (apportionment of settlement comes too late if done after jury-verdict, because nonsettling tortfeasors lose the right to settle); Dionese v. City of West Palm Beach, 500 So.2d 1347, 1351 (Fla.1987) (disclosure of settlement’s terms may lead the non-settling defendant to settle instead of going to trial).
Richard ALEXANDER
v.
SEAQUEST INCORPORATED, etc.
No. 89-1755.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Mar 6, 1991.
575 So. 2d 765
John Beranek of Aurell, Radey, Hinkle & Thomas, Tallahassee, and Krupnick, Campbell, Malone & Roselli, P.A., Fort Lauder-dale, for appellant., Robert D. Moses of Weiderhold, Moses & Bulfin, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appel-lees.
Garrett, Glickstein, Letts.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 83%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (2)
PER CURIAM.

ON REHEARING

We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing and substitute the following for our opinion filed October 10, 1990:

We affirm on the authority of Dionese v. City of West Palm Beach, 500 So.2d 1347 (Fla.1987). The “private and unilateral” settlement apportionment took place before the probate court without notice to appellees. Id. at 1350. The trial judge properly set-off the undifferentiated lump sum settlement against the total jury[*766] award in order to ensure that appellant did not recover twice for the same wrong. Id. Apparently, the probate judge did not know that the wrongful death action against the non-settling defendants had gone to trial and that the jury had determined that the estate was entitled to thirty per cent of the total verdict.[1] Had the probate judge known of the jury verdict we doubt that he would have apportioned as he did: just under six per cent of the total settlement to the estate. If the probate judge had followed the jury’s verdict there would have been a total set off. In any event, the apportionment of a settlement comes too late if done after the jury verdict because the non-settling tort-feasors lose the right to settle, thus frustrating the purpose of section 768.31(5), Florida Statutes (1987).

GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissenting without opinion.
1

Appellant argued to the trial judge that the probate court did not base its apportionment of the settlement funds on the jury’s verdict and even if the probate judge had known of the jury’s verdict he would have made the same apportionment because the verdict was clearly erroneous.