21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 600b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2106NAPLInsurance — Attorney’s fees — Justiciable issues — Attorney’s fees are assessed against insurer and its counsel for filing motion to dismiss that had no support in fact or law — Insurer’s request that attorney’s fees be awarded as consequence of medical provider’s discovery violations is denied where violations were not in bad faith and were partially due to insurer’s ill-advised motion to dismiss
NAPLES HMA, LLC D/B/A PHYSICIANS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER-PINE RIDGE, a Fl corporation, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Small Claims Action. Case No. 13-401-SC. January 24, 2014. Vince Murphy, Judge. Counsel: Leonardo Sanchez, Florida Corp. and Russel Lazega, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Brian Giddings, Adams & Diaco, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ FEES TOPLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO §57.105(1). FLA. STAT.
This matter came to the court on plaintiff’s motion for attorneys fees incurred as the result of the defendant’s presentation of a defense which was unsupported by the material facts necessary to establish the defense or by the application of law to those facts.
On April 4, 2013, the defendant filed with the clerk a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. The motion claimed that the assignment of benefits signed by the patient was ineffective. More than seven months later, on the eve of the hearing on the motion, the defendant withdrew it. It is patently obvious to the court that the motion enjoyed no support whatsoever in fact or law and was interposed solely to encumber the progress of the case.
Accordingly, the court assesses attorneys’ fees against the defendant and counsel in equal shares, in an amount to be determined at an evidentiary hearing set for that purpose.
ORDER DENYING ATTORNEYS’ FEES TODEFENDANT UNDER RULE 1.380. FLA. R. CIV. P.
The defendant has requested attorneys fees be awarded as a consequence of plaintiff’s repeated violations of the rules regarding discovery.
The court finds that the violations were not in bad faith and were at least in part occasioned by the pendency of the defendant’s ill-advised motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court denies the request for fees under Rule 1.380.
This order does not in any way affect defendant’s right to seek fees for its discovery efforts, in the event it prevails at trial.
* * *
