17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 125a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1702MORRInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Confession of error — Where there was dispute as to whether plaintiff was insured under policy, insurer’s production of policy information demanded in suit was equivalent of confession of judgment or settlement warranting award of fees and costs — Discovery — Production of billing records

[Editor’s note: See appeal at 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 267a.]

BENJAMIN MARK MORROW, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 50 2007 SC 007082 XXXX MB. November 3, 2009. Nancy Perez, Judge. Counsel: Gary Russo, The Russo Law Firm, West Palm Beach. Melissa M. Lewis, West Palm Beach.

OMNIBUS ORDER

THIS MATTER came before this Court on November 3, 2009 with both parties represented by counsel. Before the Court were the Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Reconsideration, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, Defendant’s Motion to Continue Fee Hearing, Defendant’s Motion to Shorten Time for Discovery, Defendant’s Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Proposed Final Judgment, and Defendant’s Objections to Discovery Requests.

This Court finds as follows:

1. As to the discovery requests filed by both parties, each attorney is to provide their billing records to include the hourly rate. However, any attorney/client privilege or privileged communication may be redacted. Each party shall comply no later than November 10, 2009, or as agreed by counsel, and make reasonable efforts to confer on whether there is an agreement or objection. Each party shall provide the legal authority for the item. The other documents requested are not needed or are withdrawn.

2. The Motion for Protective Order is withdrawn.

3. The Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Final Judgment is withdrawn.

4. As to the Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Reconsideration, after argument of counsel and thorough review of the court file and case law filed, this Court finds that the Court’s ruling of October 1, 2008 and May 26, 2009 are appropriate. This Court notes that there was a dispute on whether the Plaintiff was insured under the policy. The Defendant produced the policy and information as demanded in the lawsuit. The Court in October, 2008 and May, 2009 found the production of the policy information was the equivalent of a confession of judgment or settlement. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs was granted. Therefore, the Emergency Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

5. The Motion for Continuance is deemed moot based on the rulings of this Court.