26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 514a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2606MAYLInsurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Small claims — Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — Prevailing insurer is entitled to recover attorney’s fees incurred from date offer of judgment was served on windshield repair service
FRY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Cornerstone Mobile Glass, (As assignee of Julian Mayle), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 16-CC-021617, Division L. July 27, 2018. Cynthia Oster, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Patrick Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. Brendan J. McKay, Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONTO TAX COSTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES
THIS CAUSE came to be considered on Defendant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY’s (hereinafter “Defendant”) Motion to Tax Costs and Attorneys’ Fees and the stipulation of the parties, and having reviewed the file and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. This cause of action arose out of an alleged windshield replacement performed by Plaintiff, FRY ENTERPRISES, INC. a/a/o CORNERSTONE MOBILE GLASS, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). Julian Mayle (hereinafter the “insured”) allegedly sustained damage to the windshield of his vehicle. This particular type of damage was allegedly covered under the insured’s insurance policy. Plaintiff allegedly repaired the damage to the insured’s vehicle and sought payment for material and labor. The insured allegedly signed an assignment of benefits that allegedly assigned benefits to Plaintiff for the windshield repair. Plaintiff then purportedly submitted its invoice to Defendant and subsequently filed suit seeking benefits under the insured’s insurance policy with Defendant.
2. Plaintiff sought damages for an alleged breach of contract by failing to make timely payment to Plaintiff for services provided in the amount of $150.00.
3. Due to the amount in controversy ($150.00), this was a small claims action and the small claims rules governed. Other than the rules of civil procedure automatically invoked under Fla.Sm.Cl.R. 7.020(a) and sub-section (b), since both parties were represented by attorneys, no other Florida rules of civil procedure were invoked by the Court.
4. On March 8th, 2017, Defendant served an Offer of Judgment on Plaintiff pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.79. Plaintiff did not accept Defendant’s Offer of Judgment.
5. On April 20, 2017, the jury having returned its verdict finding that Defendant did not breach its automobile insurance contract with the insured Lathan Richards, the court entered final judgment for the Defendant. The court reserved jurisdiction to award taxable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
6. Based on the Court’s April 20, 2017 final judgment for Defendant, following a jury verdict finding that Defendant did not breach its contract with the Plaintiff, and pursuant to Fla. State §768.79 and Fla. Small Claims Rule 7.175, Defendant is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred from the date the Offer of Judgment was served on the Plaintiff, March 8, 2017, until the date final judgement was entered for the Defendant on April 20, 2017.
7. Based on the Court’s April 20, 2017 final judgment for Defendant, following a jury verdict finding that STATE FARM did not breach its contract with the Plaintiff, and pursuant to Fla. State §57.041 and Fla. Small Claims Rule 7.175, Defendant is entitled to recover its taxable costs incurred in defense of this case.
