4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 168a
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Arbitration — Health care provider who prevailed in arbitration is entitled to attorney’s fees notwithstanding that amount awarded was less than the amount claimed — Policy provision that there is no “prevailing party” in arbitration if amount awarded by arbitrators is less than full amount of claim asserted cannot override clear mandate of statute entitling prevailing party to attorney’s fees and costs
THE CHIROPRACTIC CENTRE, P.A., Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. In the County Court of Manatee County. Case No. CL 94-1075. July 9, 1996. Doug Henderson, Judge.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ASSESS COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
THIS CASE was heard on June 20, 1996, on the above Motion.
Undisputed Material Facts
Plaintiff sued Defendant under an assignment of benefits for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under two different policies for two separate patients. The actions were consolidated and the parties stipulated to resolving the claims disputes through binding arbitration pursuant to F.S. 627.736. The Defendant did not make any offers to settle prior to the arbitration conference. The arbitration conference resulted in Plaintiff being awarded less than the total amount claimed, but more than the amount offered by the Defendant since there were no offers.
The Plaintiff brings this Motion pursuant to the statute, which states that “the prevailing party (in arbitration) shall be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.” The Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not meet Defendant’s policy definition of “prevailing party” — under Defendant’s policy, there is no “prevailing party” in arbitration if the amount awarded by the arbitrators is less than the full amount of the claim asserted, but more than the amount offered by the Defendant.
FINDINGS
This Court is aware of no authority which would permit Defendant to override the clear mandate of the statute (i.e., that the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs) and create their own definition of the term “prevailing party”, when such definition conflicts with applicable case law from our State Supreme Court. Under Moritz vs Hoyt Enterprises, Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla.1992) and Fixel Enterprises, Inc. vs Theis, 524 So.2d 1015, (Fla. 1988), Plaintiff was clearly the “prevailing party” in the arbitration conference for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly and being otherwise fully informed, it is
ADJUDGED THAT
1. Attorney’s fees shall be paid by the Defendant to William C. Price, III, P.A. in the amount of $5,314.75;
2. Defendant shall be responsible for the payment of all arbitrators’ fees and expert witness fees for Ron Eccles, D.C. in the cumulative amount of $8,130.00;
3. Defendant shall pay costs in the amount of $576.50;
4. Defendant shall have 20 days from date of this Order to pay the above amounts, after which time Judgment shall be rendered against Defendant for any amounts unpaid.
* * *
