Case Search

Please select a category.

SPINE REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. (a/a/o MANUEL BAEZ), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 385b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1705BAEZ Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Justiciable issues

SPINE REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. (a/a/o MANUEL BAEZ), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 06-17263, Division I. February 2, 2010. Dick Greco, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Timothy Patrick. Steven D. Manno, Andrews & Manno, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

THIS CAUSE, having come before this Honorable Court on January 19, 2010 on Defendant’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and after hearing argument of counsel and being presented evidence by counsel for STATE FARM, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs pursuant to its Proposal for Settlement filed on June 28, 2007 is hereby granted. The Court finds that the Defendant has met all conditions precedent pursuant to Florida Statute §768.79, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.442 and 1.525. This Court also finds that the Proposal for Settlement was a valid Proposal for Settlement. In addition, the Proposal for Settlement was made in good faith based upon the defenses in this case. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105 filed with this Court on October 19, 2007 is granted. That the Court finds that the Defendant has presented evidence which reveals that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s attorneys knew or should have known that the lawsuit, when initially presented to the Court, was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim and would not be supported by the application of then existing law to the material facts. That the Court reserves ruling with regard to the determination of the apportionment of attorney’s fees, costs and interest between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s attorney until it has determined the total amount of attorney’s fees and costs that will be awarded to the Defendant.

Skip to content