25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 573b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2506RAMIInsurance — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Nominal proposal for settlement was reasonable and made in good faith where medical provider filed suit against wrong insurance carrier — Defendant carrier is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs against provider that voluntarily dismissed suit
IMAGING CENTER OF WEST PALM BEACH LLC (a/a/o Ramirez-Flores, Jose), Plaintiff, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Civil Division. Case No. 50-2012 SC 020729 XXXXSB. March 13, 2017. Reginald Corlew, Judge. Counsel: Scott Layden, Jr., for Plaintiff. Geoff Hirshberg, for Defendant.
[Related order regarding charging lien at FLWSUPP 2701RAMI; 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 90c]
ORDER GRANTING ENTITLEMENT TOATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS TO USAACASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on February 11, 2014, for hearing on USAA Casualty Insurance Company’s [“USAA”] Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs Pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.525, 1.442, Fla. Stat. §768.79, and Fla. Stat. §57.105, and the Court’s having reviewed the Motion, entire Court file, and the relevant legal authorities; having heard argument of counsel; having made a thorough review of the matters filed on record; and having been sufficiently advised on the premises, the Court finds as follows:
The narrow issue before this Court is whether an insurer, as the prevailing party in a case, is entitled to an award of its attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 and Fla. Stat. §768.79 and §57.105.
Findings of Fact
On June 18, 2013, USAA placed Plaintiff on notice that it had filed suit against the wrong entity. Plaintiff’s Complaint named USAA Casualty Insurance Company as the Defendant. However, USAA General Indemnity Company issued the insurance policy under which Jose Ramirez-Flores sought PIP Benefits. USAA, in accordance with Fla. Stat. §57.105, provided the Plaintiff with the requisite twenty-one day safe harbor in which to dismiss the lawsuit, but Plaintiff chose not to do so. USAA timely filed its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to, and in Accordance with, Florida Statute §57.105 on July 17, 2013. Additionally, on June 18, 2013, USAA served the Plaintiff with a Proposal for Settlement, pursuant to and in accordance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442, and Fla. Stat. §768.79, which was not accepted, and therefore, expired.
On August 5, 2013, following the expiration of Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement and the twenty-one day safe harbor, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420, Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits. Plaintiff disputed Defendant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs, therefore entitlement would be resolved at a future hearing.
Subsequent thereto, as the prevailing party [after the August 5, 2013 filing of Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice] USAA timely filed its Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs Pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.525, 1.442, Fla. Stat. §768.79, and Fla. Stat. §57.105. There is no dispute that the Plaintiff received both the proposal for settlement, and the §57.105 motion, and that USAA met all the technical [service] requirements.
The Plaintiff contests USAA’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. §768.79, alleging that USAA’s Proposal for Settlement was premature. Plaintiff’s argument was based on Defendant not responding to Plaintiff’s initial discovery requests prior to serving the Proposal for Settlement. Plaintiff conceded that USAA’s Proposal for Settlement was timely served in accordance with the requirements contained in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(b). Plaintiff also alleged that USAA failed to meet the requisite standarc for an award of attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105.
Conclusions of Law
In this Courts’ view, with certain exceptions, each case should be evaluated on its own merits. Based on the totality of the whole case record, in addition to the specific facts and circumstances of this particular case, the Court finds that the proposal for settlement was factually and legally sufficient; USAA had a reasonable foundation to make the $1.00 offer in this case; the $1.00 offer of judgment was reasonable under the circumstances of this case and made in good faith.
Accordingly, this Court finds that USAA is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the instant suit, in accordance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442, Fla. Stat. §768.79, and denies award of attorney’s fees sought by USAA pursuant to Fla. Stat. §57.105.
The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine [at an evidentiary hearing] the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
