15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 936a
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Arbitration — Trial de novo — Insurer that prevailed in trial de novo following arbitration award in favor of medical provider is not entitled to award of attorney’s fees under arbitration statute that provides for assessment of fees against party that requests trial de novo if judgment is not more favorable than arbitration decision where insurer, not provider, requested trial — Insurer is entitled to award of costs under section 57.041
SOUTH FLORIDA PAIN & REHABILITATION CENTER (a/a/o Andrew Knowles), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 07-4227 COCE 53. July 21, 2008. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Frederick W. Hoethke, Sunrise. Matt Hellman, Plantation.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TAX FEES AND COSTS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to Tax Fees and Costs, and the Court’s having reviewed the motion and entire Court file; and been sufficiently advised in the premises, finds as follows:
1. On July 1, 2008, the Jury entered a verdict in favor of the Defendant.
2. On or about December 1, 2007, the Defendant received the Notice of Court Ordered Arbitration, which was scheduled to go forward on December 13, 2007.
3. Paragraph 18 of the Notice of Court Ordered Arbitration states “If the Judgment from the trial de novo is not more favorable than the arbitration decision, the party having filed for the trial de novo may be assessed the arbitration costs; additional court costs; and other additional reasonable costs of the other parties, including attorneys’ fees, investigation expenses, and expenses for expert or other testimony or evidence incurred after the arbitration hearing” (emphasis added).
4. On December 19, 2007, the arbitration entered an arbitration award for personal injury protection benefits in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $5,292.
5. On December 28, 2007, the Defendant timely filed its Motion for Trial de Novo pursuant to the arbitration order.
6. The Defendant is requesting fees and costs. Clearly, under Fla. Stat. §57.041, the Defendant is entitled to its costs.
7. As for fees, Fla. Stat. §44.103(6) provides, in pertinent part, that in a case involving mandatory nonbinding arbitration, “the court may assess costs against the party requesting a trial de novo, including [. . .] reasonable attorney’s fees” (emphasis added).
8. In the instant case, it was the Defendant who requested a trial de novo, not the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is not entitled to an award of fees under the arbitration statute. Accordingly it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Tax Fees is DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED. The Defendant may request that this Motion be set for evidentiary hearing upon delivering to opposing counsel and the Court, by way of Notice of Filing, a detailed breakdown of costs sought in the form of date, description of cost, and amount sought (not copies of receipts). A hearing will not be set until this Notice of Filing is provided.
