Volume 26

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 321a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2604WOODInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Confession of judgment — Insurer’s post-suit payment of benefits effected a confession of judgment entitling medical provider to attorney’s fees and costs irrespective of whether insurer had notice of suit prior to paying disputed benefits — Provider is also entitled to fees for time spent litigating entitlement to fees

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 240a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2603CARRInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Confession of judgment — Where insurer made payment to provider after lawsuit was filed, a proper demand letter having been served, provider is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs as a prevailing party even if the payment subsequently made exhausted policy benefits

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 514a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2606MAYLInsurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Small claims — Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — Prevailing insurer is entitled to recover attorney’s fees incurred from date offer of judgment was served on windshield repair service

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 989a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2612DINGInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Because mandatory email service requirement in rule 2.516(b)(1) is not applicable to pretrial proposal for settlement, fact that proposal does not indicate service on secondary email address of medical provider’s attorney does not render proposal invalid — Where there is typographical error in email address listed in proposal’s certificate of service, insurer is not entitled to presumption of valid service of proposal — However, where evidence from insurer’s email archiver indicates that proposal was sent to proper email address, court finds that provider received notice of proposal — Insurer is not required to prove that proposal was received by provider, only that it was served — Despite typographical errors in email addresses listed in certificates of service on motions for attorney’s fees and notice of filing proposal for settlement, where e-filing portal reflects service on proper email addresses, insurer complied with service requirements — Rule 1.442 did not require insurer to attach proposal for settlement to motion for attorney’s fees or otherwise file proposal within 30 days after filing of judgment — Ambiguity — Fact that proposal does not track language of rule 1.442 by including phrase “all damages that would otherwise be awarded in final judgment in the action” does not render proposal invalid or ambiguous — Language in proposal seeking to resolve “any and all claims which plaintiff…has or could have asserted in this action” is not overbroad or ambiguous — Nominal proposal was made in good faith

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 832a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2610THOMAttorney’s fees — Justiciable issues — Claim or defense not supported by material facts or applicable law — Insurance — Personal injury protection insurer’s motion for sanctions pursuant to section 57.105, alleging that provider’s presuit demand letter was deficient because it failed to provide insurer with exact amount at issue, lacked any basis in fact or law — Insurer knew, or should have known, that demand letter arguably complied with statute based on same or similar challenges raised in prior motions for summary judgment in sister courts — Insurer’s motion for sanctions denied — Provider’s motion for sanctions granted

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 512c

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2606DORTInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Claim or defense not supported by material facts or applicable law — Where medical provider knew or should have known before filing suit that its demand letter was invalid for failing to include itemized statement of charges and assignment of benefits, insurer’s motion for section 57.105 sanctions is granted — Further, motion for sanctions for provider’s failure to comply with discovery order is granted — Provider’s concession that insurer is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs did not render motions for sanctions moot

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 32b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2601NZAMInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Claim or defense not supported by material facts or applicable law — Medical provider is entitled to award of attorney’s fees for defending against affirmative defense alleging that statute of limitations on provider’s claim had expired where provider filed suit within five-year limitations period following expiration of thirty days after insurer was furnished notice of covered loss

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 594b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2607MCDONOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 744aInsurance — Personal injury protection — Voluntary dismissal — Timeliness — Medical provider’s notice for voluntary dismissal entered at hearing after court denied motion for continuance but before beginning of argument on insurer’s motion for summary judgment was timely entered prior to hearing on motion for summary judgment — Attorney’s fees — Timely voluntary dismissal deprived court of jurisdiction to adjudicate motion for summary judgment based on defective demand letter but did not deprive it of jurisdiction to entertain motion for section 57.105 sanctions — Where amount owed alleged in demand letter was far in excess of coverage available under policy and differed from attached ledger and jurisdictional amount pled in complaint, provider’s counsel knew or should have known that letter did not satisfy condition precedent to filing suit, and insurer is entitled to award of attorney’s fees

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 973a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2612THOMInsurance — Attorney’s fees — Justiciable issues — Plaintiff and its counsel are liable in equal parts for defendant’s attorney’s fees pursuant section 57.105(1) where plaintiff and counsel knew before filing breach of contract claim that patient did not have a policy of insurance with defendant — Plaintiff or its counsel could have and should have verified coverage through patient prior to filing lawsuit — Argument that plaintiff had an additional 5 days to dismiss action pursuant to rule 2.514(b) because motion for sanctions was served by email is without merit — The additional 5 days set forth in rule 2.514(b) is not applicable to the 21-day safe harbor provision of section 57.105(4), as this safe harbor provision is a compliance statute for the party seeking sanctions and does not require or suggest any action on the part of the offending party

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 755a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2609HOLLInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Amount — Contingency risk multiplier — Multiplier is not warranted where there is no showing that medical provider had difficulty finding attorney or that market required multiplier to obtain competent counsel, attorneys did not give up any work to handle matter, and record reflects long periods in which attorneys performed no work on case — Amount of hours claimed is unreasonable for small claims PIP case