um/uim - Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Understanding Workers’ Compensation Liens and Uninsured Motorist Claims Under Florida Law

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Sun, 08 Jun 2025 19:36:52 GMT

It is not uncommon for employees to be injured in motor vehicle accidents while acting within the course and scope of their employment. Such incidents frequently implicate multiple layers of insurance coverage.

Regardless of fault, injured employees may be eligible for benefits including workers’ compensation, Personal Injury Protection (PIP), and health insurance (including Medicare). Workers’ compensation and PIP are considered primary over Medicare, meaning they must pay first. If Medicare does make a payment, it typically expects to be reimbursed from any subsequent workers’ compensation or personal injury recovery.

When an injured employee is not at fault, they may seek damages through a third-party civil action against the negligent driver and, if different, the vehicle’s owner. Recovery in these cases typically comes from the tortfeasor’s and owner’s bodily injury (BI) liability insurance or, if applicable, personal assets.

In many cases, however, the at-fault party either lacks BI coverage altogether or carries insufficient limits. Florida law addresses this risk through uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage, governed by § 627.727, Florida Statutes. This optional coverage is designed to fill the gap left by the inadequacy—or absence—of BI insurance.

Per § 627.727(1), the purpose of UM/UIM coverage is:

“…for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom.”

The Workers’ Compensation Lien Under § 440.39

Section 440.39, Florida Statutes, grants workers’ compensation (WC) carriers an equitable lien on any judgment or settlement obtained by the injured worker from a third-party tortfeasor. This lien allows the carrier to recover benefits previously paid out, including indemnity and medical expenses.

However, critically, the WC lien does not attach to UM/UIM proceeds. Florida courts have addressed this distinction:

Volk v. Gallopo, 585 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991): Held that a WC carrier cannot benefit from a UM recovery due to the plain language of § 440.39(3)(a), which excludes UM recoveries from lien applicability.
§ 627.727(1), Fla. Stat.: Explicitly states that UM coverage “shall not inure directly or indirectly to the benefit of any workers’ compensation … carrier.”

When BI and UIM Coverage Coexist: Procedural Mechanics

In claims involving both BI and UIM, procedural requirements under § 627.727(6)(a)-(b) govern how settlements must be handled:

(a) Notification Requirement

If the injured party agrees to settle with the liability insurer but the settlement won’t fully satisfy their claim (thereby triggering a UIM claim), they must notify all UIM carriers by certified or registered mail. The UIM carrier then has 30 days to either:

Authorize the settlement, or
Preserve subrogation rights under paragraph (b).

(b) Preservation of Subrogation Rights

If the UIM carrier elects to preserve subrogation, it must:

Pay the BI settlement amount to the injured party within 30 days.
Thereafter, the UIM carrier may pursue subrogation against the at-fault party and their liability carrier.

This mechanism ensures the UIM carrier can protect its reimbursement rights by preventing the injured party from releasing the tortfeasor from further liability.

When UM is BI

In Metrix South v. Rose, 758 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the UIM carrier refused to authorize settlement of a $100,000 BI offer and instead paid that amount directly to the claimant to preserve subrogation rights. The workers’ compensation carrier claimed a lien on the payment.

The trial court ruled that the payment constituted UM benefits, thereby exempt from the lien under § 440.39. However, the Fourth DCA reversed, holding that the payment was the equivalent of a third-party recovery, making it subject to the WC lien:

“… the trial court erred in characterizing the $100,000 payment to appellees as UM benefits and not a judgment or settlement recovered by the employee.”

This decision illustrates the complexity that arises when UM and UIM coverage functions as a stand-in for third-party BI liability, particularly in lien determinations.

Conclusion

Understanding the relationship between workers’ compensation lien rights and UM/UIM insurance is essential in motor vehicle accident cases involving injured workers. While Florida law generally prohibits WC carriers from recovering UM/UIM proceeds, exceptions exist—especially where UIM payments substitute for BI coverage through statutory subrogation mechanisms.

Practitioners must closely evaluate the structure and source of all settlements to determine lien exposure under § 440.39, and comply with § 627.727’s procedural requirements when both BI and UIM are in play.

**************************************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email (kgale@jeffgalelaw.com and jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

DISCLAIMER: This information provided by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a non-legal guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. It should not be considered legal advice or counseling. No such legal advice or counseling is either expressly or impliedly intended. This information is not a substitute for the advice or counsel of an attorney. If you require legal advice, you should seek the services of an attorney.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Florida PIP Payments in Uber Crashes

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Fri, 30 May 2025 16:41:32 GMT

Despite having many potential sources of payment for medical expenses in ride share-related crashes, Uber riders sometimes end up holding the bag.

The most common payment sources are PIP, MedPay, health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and bodily injury liability insurance.

With a few exceptions, every owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed in Florida must maintain PIP insurance. See Florida Statute 627.733. PIP, which applies without regard to fault, covers medical expenses and lost wages. Most Florida policies limit PIP coverage to $10,000 and apply deductibles.

One of the benefits of the ride share industry is that people can go without owning a vehicle. However, PIP is not automatically available to those PIP passengers who live in Florida and do not reside with a relative who maintains PIP insurance. Likewise, other medical insurance may not be available.

In some instances, ride share drivers have PIP coverage for passengers. The driver must inform his carrier of his ride share work and pay a premium for ride share coverage. If the driver fails to do this, the carrier will deny coverage. Uber is not required to maintain PIP in Florida, so it doesn’t.

Uber maintains bodily injury liability (BI) coverage and MedPay under its Florida insurance policies. Contrary to popular belief, it does not maintain UM/UIM coverage. Uber’s BI only applies if its driver is at-fault. It covers non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and economic damages such as income loss and medical expenses. Like PIP, MedPay applies without regard to fault. If PIP isn’t available or is exhausted, it will cover up to $5,000 in medical expenses. Unlike PIP, it must be reimbursed from BI payments (its own or from third-parties).

Health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid may also cover medical expenses. Like MedPay, they must be reimbursed from BI money.

Medical expenses are costly. Steps can be taken to limit personal exposure to those expenses.

**************************************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email (kgale@jeffgalelaw.com and jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. /// Uber Drivers and Passengers, Beware!

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Wed, 30 Apr 2025 17:22:19 GMT

Much has been written about the type of insurance coverage available to Uber passengers and other third parties for accidents caused by Uber drivers. Less has been written about the coverage available to Uber drivers and their passengers for injuries caused by third parties such as other drivers.

Currently, we are handling a case for an Uber driver who was hurt through the negligence of another driver. Our client’s passenger was also hurt.

Florida motor vehicle insurance policies offer a variety of coverages. For individuals, only Property Damage Liability and PIP are mandatory. The other available coverages are Uninsured Motorist/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM), Comprehensive, Collision, and Medical Payments. A premium is charged for each type of coverage.

Uber maintains insurance coverage in Florida with Progressive. We received a copy of the policy applicable to our accident. The available coverages are:

Liability to Others – Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability – $1,000,000 combined single limit
Comprehensive – $2,500
Collision – $2,500
Medical Payments – $5,000 each person

Uber rejected UM/UIM. PIP was not an option.

Uninsured Motorist insurance is coverage for when the at-fault party does not maintain Bodily Injury Liability insurance coverage. Underinsured Motorist applies when the Bodily Injury Liability coverage limits are insufficient to fully compensate for all damages.

Florida Statute 627.748(7) outlines the insurance requirements for transportation companies like Uber and Lyft — referred to in the statute as “Transportation Network Companies” and “TNC” — and their drivers. The statute provides that “Uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage as required by s. 627.727” must be maintained while a participating TNC driver is logged on to the digital network but is not engaged in a prearranged ride or while a TNC driver is engaged in a prearranged ride. Subsection (7)(d) further provides:

If the TNC driver’s insurance under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) has lapsed or does not provide the required coverage, the insurance maintained by the TNC must provide the coverage required under this subsection, beginning with the first dollar of a claim, and have the duty to defend such claim.

The statutory language gives the appearance that UM/UIM would always be available, when applicable, through the TNC or its driver. Appearances can be deceiving! In Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Raiser-DC, LLC, 724 F.Supp. 1273 (USDC, S.D. Florida 2024), summary judgment was entered in favor of Progressive’s position that UM and UIM coverage did not exist under the TNC’s insurance policy. This left its driver [Karina Monasterio], who was seriously injured by the negligence of another driver, who was underinsured at the time of the accident, without UIM insurance. Here are key parts of the ruling:

In pertinent part, the Florida UM/UIM statute requires that:

(1) No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein … However, the coverage required under this section is not applicable when, or to the extent mat, an insured named in the policy makes a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy.”

Fla Stat. 627.727(1) (emphasis added). Florida courts have already interpreted that Subsection (1) of the Florida UM/UIM Statute “limits the applicability of the uninsured motorist requirements to liability policies covering specifically insured or identified motor vehicles.” Hooper v. Zurich Ins. Co., 789 So. 2d 368, 369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001).

The Parties state, and Ms. Monasterio readily concedes, that the Period Policy “is not issued for specifically insured or identified vehicles.” The Period Policy does not identify any specific vehicle nor is Ms. Monasterio’s vehicle specifically identified. As Subsection (1) is therefore not applicable to the Period Policy, Ms. Monasterio cannot point to any text in the Florida UM/UIM Statute that would require coverage for her vehicle during the May 6, 2022, incident. Her argument that Subsection (1) of the Florida UM/UIM Statute is the only subsection to limit its applicability to specifically insured or identified motor vehicles, does undermine the limitation nor in and of itself create language that mandates UM/UIM insurance for all other types of insurance policies.

However, Ms. Monasterio urges this Court to recognize the result that follows. Subsection (1) of the Florida UM/UIM Statute only requires UM/UIM coverage for “specifically insured or identified vehicles.” The Period Policy was written to cover “any auto while being used by a TNC driver, but only while engaged in providing a prearranged service utilizing the ride-share application …” It is likely that most TNC policies will be written similarly and it would be virtually impossible for any TNC to possibly identify each vehicle in the written policy. Therefore, it is further likely that no TNC driver or vehicle would ever be specifically insured or identified by the TNC’s insurance policy, and as a result, never meet the condition precedent for Subsection (1) of the Florida UM/UIM Statute. By referencing, the Florida UM/UIM Statute, the TNC Act makes the requirement for UM/UIM coverage meaningless for TNC insurance policies.

The court acknowledged “that this interpretation might be counter to the Florida Legislature’s intent when they drafted the TNC Act.” However, it relied on basic statutory interpretaton to reach the final result:

Notwithstanding the legislative intent however, my inquiry must focus on the language of the statute in its final form, and the statute references the Florida UM/UIM Statute in its entirety. The TNC Act only mandates UM/UIM insurance as required by the Florida UM/UIM Statute and Subsection (1) of the UM/UIM only requires that policies that specifically insure vehicles provide such coverage. I believe this is the result that the final text of the TNC Act requires. Belanger v. Salvation Army, 556 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 2009) (“When the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute’s plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent.”).

In our case, because Uber’s driver, our client, did not cause the crash, the Bodily Injury Liability coverage in Uber’s Progressive policy does not come into play for our client or his passenger. The only injury-related coverage in Uber’s policy for our crash is the Medical Payments coverage. This coverage does not compensate for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. Thankfully, the at-fault driver maintained enough bodily injury liability insurance to compensate for our client’s non-economic damages. Had our client’s injuries been more serious, that would not be the case. We do not know the full extent of the passenger’s injuries or what other insurance coverage he may have to know whether he will be fully compensated.

Bottom line: to protect against uninsured and underinsured situations, TNC drivers must maintain their own UM and UIM insurance. The TNC will not provide the coverage for them. The same goes for passengers. If the driver has UM/UIM and the passenger does not have other insurance considered primary for the same measure of damages, the driver’s UM/UIM should provide coverage.

**************************************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email (kgale@jeffgalelaw.com and jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) to learn your legal rights.