26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 589b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2607BRUCInsurance — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Although medical provider’s complaint sought both equitable relief and non-equitable relief, where true relief sought was money damages, proposal for settlement statute is applicable

AVENTURA WELLNESS AND REHAB CENTER a/a/o Beatriz Bruce, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2016-010927 SP 23 (01), Civil Division. August 22, 2018. Myriam Lehr, Judge. Counsel: Travis Greene, Anidjar & Levine P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Howard Myones, Myones Legal, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Alexandra (Ali) Diaz de Arce, Progressive PIP House Counsel, Medley, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR ENTITLEMENT AND MOTION TO TAXATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS ANDAND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on August 6, 2018 on Defendant’s Motion for Entitlement and Motion to Tax Attorney’s Fees and Costs and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, and the Court having considered the argument of counsel and Memorandums of Law submitted by the parties, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereupon,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. On November 3, 2016, Defendant’s served a Proposal for Settlement pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442.

2. Plaintiff did not accept the Proposal for Settlement in writing prior to its expiration of 30 days.

3. On March 14, 2018, this Court entered an Order Granting Defendant’s Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment and reserved jurisdiction to determine Defendant’s fees and costs against Plaintiff [26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 311b].

4. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement is invalid because the Plaintiff’s complaint sought both equitable relief and non-equitable relief and therefore section 768.79 is inapplicable.

The Court finds that the true relief sought by the Plaintiff in this action was money damages. Therefore, pursuant to Faith Freight Forwarding, Corp. v. Anias, 206 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) [41 Fla. L. Weekly D2214b] and Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. v. Javellana, 238 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) [42 Fla. L. Weekly D2597a], the Court finds that Fla. Stat. 768.79 applies. The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the Defendant, upon hearing.