23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 818a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2308GARRInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Exhaustion of policy limits — Where benefits were exhausted in payment of valid claims, insurer had no further liability for unresolved pending claims in absence of evidence of bad faith — Trial court could properly enter final judgment in favor of medical provider for amount stated in insurer’s confession of judgment but erred in granting provider’s motion for summary judgment as to payment of full claim — Attorney’s fees — Provider is entitled to award of attorney’s fees and costs only up until date of insurer’s confession of judgment — Insurer is entitled to award of attorney’s fees and costs from date of its proposal for settlement
GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PEMBROKE PINES MRI, INC., A/A/O GABRIEL GARCIA, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case Nos. CACE11-016519 (AP) and CACE12-035789 (AP). L.T. Case No. COCE09-010942. December 3, 2015. Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Sharon Zeller, Judge. Counsel: Douglas H. Stein, Seipp, Flick & Hosley, LLP, Coral Gables, for Appellant. Joseph Littman, Kane & Kane, Boca Raton, for Appellee.
OPINION
(PER CURIAM.) In this consolidated appeal, Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Garrison”) appeals a final judgment in favor of Pembroke Pines MRI, Inc. (“PPMRI”) and a final judgment and order on motion for attorney’s fees and costs. On August 13, 2013, this Court entered an order staying the instant appeal pending resolution of the petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Oakland Park MRI, Inc., (a/a/o Antonia Gale), 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 22b (Fla. 17th Cir Ct. Aug 31, 2011). On March 20, 2014, the Fourth District Court of Appeal entered an order denying the petition for writ of certiorari on the merits. Based on the final disposition of said petition for writ of certiorari, this Court hereby lifts the stay entered in the instant appeal and renders the following Opinion. Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the record and the applicable law, this Court dispenses with oral argument, and finds that the orders should be reversed as set forth below.
Regarding the exhaustion of benefits, the county court erred in granting PPMRI’s motion for summary judgment as to payment of the full claim and denying Garrison’s motion for summary judgment. Garrison is not liable for PIP benefits exceeding the statutory limits. See Geico Indem. Co. v. Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc., 159 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D2561a]. Once PIP benefits were exhausted through the payment of valid claims, Garrison had no further liability on unresolved, pending claims, absent bad faith in the handling of the claim by Garrison. See Northwoods Sports Med. & Physical Rehab., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 137 So. 3d 1049, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D491a] (discussing post-suit exhaustion of benefits). And, the county court specifically ruled that bad faith was not an issue in this case. While the county court could properly enter a final judgment for PPMRI based on Garrison’s confession of judgment for $14.51, the county court should have denied PPMRI’s motion for summary judgment as to payment of the full claim and granted Garrison’s motion for summary judgment based on the exhaustion of benefits.
The county court correctly determined that PPMRI is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs; however, the county court abused its discretion to the extent that such award included attorney’s fees and costs accrued after Garrison’s confession of judgment. Garrison’s confession of judgment entitled PPMRI to attorney’s fees and costs accrued up until such confession of judgment. See Barreto v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 82 So. 3d 159, 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D571a]. In addition, based upon its proposal of settlement, Garrison is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs from the date of such proposal forward. See Rodriguez v. Gov’t Emp. Ins. Co., 80 So. 3d 1042, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D2788a] (explaining that section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes, does not preclude application of the offer of judgment statute for the period after the offer, and that, in a case where both statutes are implicated, after the appropriate calculation of fees to be awarded under the mutually exclusive bases, a setoff of fees should be done as in the case of Tierra Holdings, Ltd. v. Mercantile Bank, 78 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1049b]).
Accordingly, the final judgment in favor of PPMRI is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of a final judgment based upon Garrison’s confession of judgment for $14.51. The final judgment and order on motion for attorney’s fees and costs is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of a final judgment and order awarding PPMRI its attorney’s fees and costs accrued up until Garrison’s confession of judgment and after a setoff of fees based on Garrison’s proposal of settlement. Garrison’s Motion for Appellate Attorney’s Fees is hereby GRANTED with the amount to be determined by the county court upon remand. PPMRI’s Motion for Appellate Attorney’s Fees is hereby DENIED. (ENGLANDER HENNING, TUTER and MURPHY, JJ., concur.)
