6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 673a
NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 90g
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Language of complaint was sufficient to apprise insurance carrier of insured’s claim for attorney’s fees under no-fault law
FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. ROSENETTE OBDEUS, Appellee. 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Appellate Division. Case No. 99-0067. Lower Case No. 97-08089 SP-26. Opinion filed August 11, 1999. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida. Counsel: Diane H. Tutt, for Appellant. Neil M. Gonzalez, for Appellee.
(Before FREDRICKA G. SMITH, BERNARD SHAPIRO and ELEANOR SCHOCKETT, JJ.)
(Per Curiam.) We affirm the trial court’s ruling that Obdeus is entitled to attorneys’ fees for having successfully brought suit against her insurance carrier for medical bills under her PIP policy. After the suit was filed, the insurance company paid the medical bills but claimed Obdeus was not entitled to fees because she did not plead a specific statutory basis for said fees in her complaint.
The complaint included the following allegations:
That the defendant, Fortune has failed to pay for said personal injury protection benefits in accordance with the Florida Automobile Reparation Reformed [sic] Act.
That due to the defendant’s failure to pay said benefits the plaintiff’s credit has been damaged, and the plaintiff has had to retain counsel to bring this action in order to compel payment of PIP benefits, and she is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee for the prosecution of this action.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Rosenette Obdeus demands judgment against the defendant, Fortune Insurance Company within the jurisdiction of this Court together with court costs, attorney’s fees…
We find the above quoted language was sufficient to apprise the insurance carrier of the claim for attorney’s fees based on §627.730 – 627.7405 Fla. Stat. (1998), the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law,1 as the law requires.2 See Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1991).
We note the decision in favor of the insurance carrier in U.S. Security Co. v. Marquez, 5 F.L.W. Supp. 143 (11th Jud. Cir., Nov. 7, 1997), but find that in Marquez, unlike in our case, the plaintiff failed to claim in her complaint that she was entitled to attorney’s fees from the defendant, (although admittedly, the claim was implied). Our holding is consistent with the opinion in Fortune Insurance Company v. Urquijo, Case No.98378 AP (11th Jud.Cir., July 16, 1999) [6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 604b], which was released following oral argument in this case.
Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court and approve the award of attorney’s fees and costs entered below. Further, we award attorney’s fees and costs associated with this appeal and remand to the trial court to determine the amount.
________
1In 1982 the legislature changed the name of the law which had been known as the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act.
2Of course, the better practice would have been for plaintiff to correctly cite the statute by name and section number.
* * *
