Volume 22

Case Search

WINDHAVEN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. ROOSEVELT REHAB & CHIROPRACTIC, INC., as assignee of ZCHECIRE MARIE DONARYE, Appellee.

22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 659a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2206WINDInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Contingency risk multiplier — Appeals — Claim that trial court erred in considering likelihood of success as factor in determining appropriateness of multiplier was preserved for appeal where insurer repeatedly apprised trial court of putative error — Error not invited by single statement that likelihood of success might be factor if there was testimony on issue — Likelihood of success at outset of case is factor to be considered in determining amount of multiplier, not appropriateness of imposing multiplier — However, error was harmless where there was competent substantial evidence to support application of multiplier under correct legal standard

Read More »

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. DR. MICHAEL SURDIS d/b/a BROWARD CHIROPRACTIC & PAIN REHABILITATION CENTER, (a/a/o RAFAEL CARBONELL), Appellee.

22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 80a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2201CARBNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 532cInsurance — Attorney’s fees — Attorney who withdrew as counsel prior to resolution of case was not entitled to award of attorney’s fees notwithstanding fee agreement stating that attorney is entitled to fee upon judgment or settlement after withdrawal

Read More »

MARSHALL BRONSTEIN, D.C., a/a/o Maria Hodate, Appellant, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 323a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2203HODAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Trial court did not err in denying medical provider’s motion for attorney’s fees where, due to insured’s failure to attend independent medical examination, provider obtained judgment for no more than pre-suit settlement offer — Fact that settlement offer was for full and final payment of PIP benefits and would have precluded provider from attempting to recover bills accrued after missed IME does not render offer invalid — Fact that provider recovered more interest than was included in settlement offer does not entitle provider to award of attorney’s fees

Read More »
Skip to content