Case Name: Michael E. BRUNER and wife, Kathy C. Bruner, Appellants, v. CATERPILLAR, INC., f/k/a/ Caterpillar Tractor Company, and Burford Equipment Company, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-11-12
Citations: 627 So. 2d 46
Docket Number: No. 92-2237
Parties: Michael E. BRUNER and wife, Kathy C. Bruner, Appellants, v. CATERPILLAR, INC., f/k/a/ Caterpillar Tractor Company, and Burford Equipment Company, Appellees.
Judges: BARFIELD, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 627
Pages: 46–48

Head Matter:
Michael E. BRUNER and wife, Kathy C. Bruner, Appellants, v. CATERPILLAR, INC., f/k/a/ Caterpillar Tractor Company, and Burford Equipment Company, Appellees.
No. 92-2237.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 12, 1993.
Edmund D. Quintana of Burke & Blue, P.A., Panama City and James C. Adkins of Carson, Linn & Adkins, Tallahassee, for appellants.
John M. Fite of Barron, Redding, Hughes, Fite, Bassett & Fensom, P.A., Panama City, for appellees.

Opinion:
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellants raise several issues in this civil ease, each of which we find to be without merit. The appellee Caterpillar cross-appeals, contesting the court's denial of a collateral source offset under section 768.-76, Florida Statutes. We find this issue to be likewise without merit. The asserted offset was based on the appellant Michael Bruner's receipt of workers' compensation benefits, for which the workers' compensation insurer had a statutory subrogation right under section 440.39(2), Florida Statutes. Although the workers' compensation insurer claimed no subrogation interest in accordance with a negotiated agreement for settlement of the workers' compensation claim, the appellee was not a party to and had no interest in the workers' compensation action. Its liability as a defendant in the appellants' separate civil action is unaffected by the private allocation of rights in the workers' compensation action. A collateral source offset pursuant to section 768.76(1) is not allowed due to the statutory subrogation right which pertains under section 440.39(2), as section 768.76 does not imbue a wrongful tortfeasor with the benefit of a plaintiffs settlement of a third party claim with a negotiated subrogation waiver. See also Respess v. Carter, 585 So.2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The court thus properly declined to grant the appellee's request for a collateral source offset, and the challenged order is affirmed.
BARFIELD, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., concurs with written opinion.