18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 302a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1803COLE
Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Medical provider that did not recover more than presuit settlement offer is not prevailing party entitled to award of attorney’s fees
LAUDERDALE PHYSICIANS ASSOCIATES dba DSE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., a/a/o Desirea Cole, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 07-26306 CC 25 (02). December 15, 2010. Lawrence D. King, Judge.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
This matter came before the Court for hearing on December 15, 2010 for consideration of Plaintiff, Lauderdale Physicians Associates Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Prejudgment Interest. All attorneys of record were present.
The Court having considered the subject motion and attached exhibits, relevant case law authority, the oral argument of counsel, the Clerk’s docket sheet, the Court file and all pleadings contained therein, and being otherwise apprised in the premises hereby enters the following ruling.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff, Lauderdale Physicians Associates Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Prejudgment Interest is DENIED.
The Court finds that Plaintiff is not the prevailing party in this action. See Danis Industries Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 645 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1994); Mendez v. Bankers Ins. Co., 696 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) [22 Fla. L. Weekly D1321b]; Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Shafer & Miller, Inc., 515 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Greenough v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 449 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); U.S. Security Ins. Co. v. North Miami Therapy Center, Inc. a/a/o Marie Yvonnette Dessin, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 582b (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. 2008); Union American Ins. Co. v. Lopez, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 72a (Fla. 11th Jud Cir. 1998).
Respectfully the Court notes that Plaintiff’s reliance on Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. DeSalvo, 748 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly S422a] is misplaced. There exists a significant factual distinction between the case sub judice and DeSalvo. Specifically there was no presuit settlement offer made by and between the parties in DeSalvo.
