14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 389a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Costs — Guidelines — Where amended Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Cases were not in effect when suit was filed but were in effect when insurer’s right to tax costs was triggered by voluntary dismissal of case, amended guidelines apply to determination of which costs are taxable — Deposition charges are taxable where costs were reasonably necessary for insurer to defend case
TAMPA TRAUMA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 05-20245, Division “L”. January 25, 2007. John N. Conrad, Judge. Counsel: Thomas J. Dandar, Tampa, for Plaintiff. Steven D. Manno, Kingsford & Rock, P.A., Tampa.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION TO TAX COSTS
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on December 6, 2006, pursuant to Defendant’s Amended Motion to Tax Costs, and the Court having heard argument from the parties, given the parties additional time to brief the issues, and researched applicable law,
FINDS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES as follows:
1. The complaint in this case was filed on August 19, 2005. This case was resolved when Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on August 23, 2006. Following the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Defendant timely filed its Motion, and Amended Motion, to Tax Costs.
2. Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant is entitled to recover costs in this case, but argues that the determination of which costs are taxable should be controlled by the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Cases (hereinafter referred to as “the Guidelines”) that were in effect at the time the suit was filed. Defendant argues that the Guidelines, as amended effective January 1, 2006, should apply to the case at hand because the changes to the Guidelines are procedural or remedial in nature, and therefore, can be applied retroactively. Neither party has presented a case to the Court that specifically addresses the issue in this case.
3. Defendant has requested this Court to make a finding that the amended Guidelines apply because they reflect procedural or remedial changes, and therefore, can be applied retroactively under Florida law. In researching this issue, there appears to be some confusion with the courts in deciding whether to apply a procedural/substantive analysis to a rule change or to strictly adhere to a prospective application based solely on the effective date provision set forth in the Amendments. This confusion was acknowledged by the First District Court in Smith v. Smith, 902 So.2d 859, 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), when it stated that “[W]e are unable to reconcile the retroactivity discussion in Natkow and Reddell with the settled principle of law that procedural or remedial changes in the law are applicable to pending cases, including cases pending on appeal from a lower court.” Because this Court believes there is an alternative, legal basis upon which to base its decision in this matter, the Court does not deem it necessary to rule upon the procedural/substantive arguments presented by the parties.
4. In determining the applicability of amendments to rules of civil procedure, the Florida Supreme Court has held that such rules are prospective unless specifically provided otherwise. See Mendez-Perez v. Perez-Perez, 656 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1995). However, the courts have been consistent in applying rules of procedure that are in effect at the time a case becomes final. See Natkow v. Natkow, 696 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1997) and Nicoletti v. Nicoletti, 902 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (time for filing motion for attorney’s fees was dictated by rule in effect when right to attorney’s fees was triggered, which occurred when the judgment was entered). In the case at hand, the amended Guidelines were in effect when the case was dismissed in August, 2006. The Defendant’s right to tax costs was triggered upon the dismissal of the case, and therefore, this Court holds that the Guidelines, as amended effective January 1, 2006, should control in this case.
5. Furthermore, the majority of the costs sought to be taxed by Defendant relate to deposition charges. Under the new Guidelines, these costs should be taxed if the moving party has shown that the costs were reasonably necessary either to defend or prosecute the case at the time the action precipitating the cost was taken. In awarding costs to Defendant in this matter, the Court specifically finds that these costs were reasonably necessary for Defendant to defend this case. The Court also notes that even under the former Guidelines, section 1(E) provided that costs for “depositions of witnesses not used at trial for any purpose and not used to support or defeat a Motion for Summary Judgment” were taxable if the Court concluded that the taking of the deposition was “reasonably necessary”.
6. That based upon the foregoing analysis, and the billing statements filed by Defendant, the Court grants the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Tax Costs, and awards the following sums:
A) Deposition Costs: $2,887.17
B) Costs of Subpoenas: $343.00
C) Costs of Copies: $67.00
WHEREFORE, Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, shall recover from Plaintiff, Tampa Trauma Medical Center, Inc., the total sum of $3,297.17, for which let execution issue.
