Case Search

Please select a category.

BIOMECHANICAL TRAUMA ASSOCIATION, INC., as assignee of Denise Newman, Plaintiff, vs. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 62a

Arbitration — Attorney’s fees — Motion for summary judgment as to entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs on underlying arbitration proceeding granted where defendant agreed to settle disputed claim immediately after plaintiff demanded arbitration — Prevailing party definition of Section 627.736(b)(c)(1)-(3), Florida Statutes, does not apply when confession of judgment is made prior to arbitration award — Payment of claim is functional equivalent to confession of judgment or verdict in favor of plaintiff for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees

BIOMECHANICAL TRAUMA ASSOCIATION, INC., as assignee of Denise Newman, Plaintiff, vs. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 99-6312-SC-ISeptember 27, 1999. Charlotte W. Anderson, Judge.

ORDER OF FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This Action was heard upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to entitlement to attorney fees and costs on the underlying arbitration proceeding on September 16, 1999, and both parties appearing through counsel, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

2. Defendant agreed to settle the disputed claim immediately after Plaintiff demanded arbitration. Defendant declined to defend its position and payment of the claim is the functional equivalent to a confession of judgment or verdict in favor of Plaintiff for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees. Wollard v. Lloyd’s and Companies of Lloyd’s, 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1983). To hold otherwise would be to encourage parties to avoid the arbitration process in favor of filing suit and to allow insurance companies to force opposing parties to incur unnecessary expenses and then not be liable for these expenses by paying the claim before the arbitration hearing is held. This was, undoubtedly, not the intention of the Florida Legislature when it enacted the applicable statutes as amended in 1998.

3. This Court specifically holds that the prevailing party definition of F.S. 627.736(5)(c)(1)-(3) (1998) does not apply when a confession of judgment is made prior to an arbitration award.

* * *

Skip to content