13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 892a
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Prevailing party — Where medical provider accepted proposal for settlement for amount equal to or less than amount offered in settlement prior to suit being filed, provider is not prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees or costs
LABROUSE d.b.a. SCR & W CTR, (a/a/o Rumpeuy Nenyod), Plaintiff, v. U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 04-21851 SP 23 (2). March 22, 2006. Caryn Canner Schwartz, Judge. Counsel: Ariol Eugene, for Plaintiff. Alberto M. Valdes, Hamilton House Counsel, Miami, for Defendant.
FINAL ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS AND DISMISSING CASE
This Cause having come before the Court on March 14, 2006, on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, the Court having heard argument of counsel, having considered the facts as established at said hearing, having considered the documentation provided and applicable case and statutory law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is hereby DENIED.
2) Plaintiff is notentitled to attorney’s fees and costs as Plaintiff is not the prevailing party. This is the case as Plaintiff accepted a proposal for settlement in the amount of $3379.80, an amount which the undisputed facts show was offered in settlement by the Defendant prior to this lawsuit being filed. The facts show Defendant may have even tendered additional sums in settlement prior to suit.
3) Having failed to obtain an amount greater than the amount the Defendant had offered in settlement prior to this lawsuit being filed, Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Florida law. See Danis Ind. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 645 So.2d 420 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1994); C.U. Associates, Inc., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So.2d 1177 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1985); Greenough v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Comp., 449 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Westinghouse Elect. Corp. v. Shafer & Miller, Inc. and American Home Assurance Comp., 515 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Union American Ins. Co. v. Ismael Lopez, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 72a (Fla. 11th Judicial Circuit Appellate Division 1998).
4) Based on the above and the fact that there are no remaining issues to be determined by this Court, this matter is dismissed with prejudice.
* * *
