Case Name: COURT OF FLAGS and Insurance Company of North America, Appellants, v. Wayne OUTLAND, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-04-18
Citations: 382 So. 2d 443
Docket Number: No. QQ-135
Parties: COURT OF FLAGS and Insurance Company of North America, Appellants, v. Wayne OUTLAND, Appellee.
Judges: LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 382
Pages: 443–445

Head Matter:
COURT OF FLAGS and Insurance Company of North America, Appellants, v. Wayne OUTLAND, Appellee.
No. QQ-135.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 18, 1980.
Michael A. Miller and Donna L. Bergh, Orlando, for appellants.
Steven A. Rissman of Cooper & Rissman, Orlando, amicus curiae, for appellants.
Thomas R. Mooney and J. Peyton Lea, III, of Meyers, Mooney & Adler, Orlando, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Employer/carrier appeals a worker's compensation order approving a lump-sum advancement pursuant to § 440.20(10), Fla. Stat. Before approving such an advancement, the deputy must determine that it is in the best interest of the claimant, is reasonable under the circumstances of the case, and will not materially prejudice the rights of the employer/carrier. § 440.20(10) Fla. Stat.; § 440.20(ll)(d), Fla.Stat. While the judge has broad discretion in such matters, Herndon v. City of Miami, 224 So.2d 681 (Fla.1969), we conclude that the present case involves an abuse of discretion, and we hereby reverse the order appealed.
Claimant indicated that the § 440.-20(10) advancement would be used to purchase savings certificates with an interest rate exceeding the § 440.20(10) 4% discount rate. Claimant testified simply that he desired the advancement so that his spouse would have the money if he were to die before the employer/carrier had fully discharged its worker's compensation obligations. Under Chapter 440, Fla.Stat., however, worker's compensation benefits are not intended as life insurance. See George-son v. Oakland Park Rock Co., IRC Order 2-2971 (May 27, 1976) (concurring opinion), cert, denied 339 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1976). The relevant § 440.20(10) inquiry is whether an advancement is in "the best interests of the person entitled to compensation " [emphasis supplied]. The record in the present case contains nothing to indicate that the claimant's condition or "interests" were directly affected in any way by his concern over either of the above-noted estate planning or money market considerations. In the context of this case, such factors are in our opinion insufficient to permit an order for a § 440.20(10) advancement.
The award of costs is also reversed. Cf., Gardinier v. Madry, IRC Order 2-3227 (Sept. 13, 1977).
Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed.
LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., J., specially concurs.