26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 545b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2607WOODInsurance — Personal injury protection — Evidence — No error in excluding insurer’s expert or in admitting medical provider as expert — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. ERIC G. FRIEDMAN, D.C., P.A., a/a/o Yvette Woodard, Appellees. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 15-420 AP. L.T. Case No. 11-40 SP 05. August 16, 2018. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami- Dade County. Counsel: Lourdes Simon, J. Diane H. Tutt, for Appellant. Charles L. Vaccaro, for Appellee.
(Before RODRIGUEZ-FONTS, SAYFIE and FINE. JJ.)
(PER CURIAM.) Affirmed. There was no abuse of discretion in excluding the defense expert or admitting the plaintiff as an expert. Likewise, there was no basis for a mistrial. The defense objections were properly sustained, some curative language was included, and any residual error was harmless.
Pursuant to §768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (1997), “The “defendant shall be entitled to recover . . . attorney’s fees . . . if the judgment is one of no liability or the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent less than such offer”). In “the event of an appeal in which the insured prevails, the appellate court shall adjudge adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured.” §627.428(1), Fla. Stat. (1982). Because this panel affirms the judgment, Insurer-Appellant is not entitled to appellate attorney’s fees. Instead, Provider-Appellee, having prevailed on appeal, is granted appellate attorney’s fees the sum of which shall be determined by the trial court.
