Volume 7

Case Search

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellant, vs. SOUTHEAST DIAGNOSTIC, INC., (Patient: AGATHA HILTON), Plaintiff/Appellee.

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 509a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Offer of judgment — Section 768.79 creates mandatory right to attorney’s fees once statutory requirements have been met, unless trial court finds offer was not made in good faith — Although trial court failed to make finding of bad faith, it appears it denied attorney’s fees based on concern that insurer’s offer of $250 was insufficient — Record supports determination that insurer, based on its investigation, felt it had no liability and simply made $250 offer to cover filing costs of lawsuit and to encourage settlement, which constitutes sufficient good faith basis for offer — Remand for determination of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs

Read More »

Med+Plus Medical Clinics, Inc., As assignee of Ginger Freebery, Plaintiff, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant.

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 804b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Settlement — Offer — Motion to strike insurer’s proposal of settlement denied as offer of judgment statute applies to PIP cases the same as in all civil actions in which one party seeks damages from another party — Because offer of judgment statute applies to PIP actions, its companion rule of civil procedure, Rule 1.442, must necessarily apply, even though Small Claims rule 7.020(a), which identifies which Rules of Civil Procedure will necessarily apply in all small claims cases does not include Rule 1.442 — Acceptance of proposal — Enlargement of time — Plaintiff’s request for enlargement of time to accept insurer’s proposal of settlement granted — Because parties have agreed to extend time period until court rules on plaintiff’s motions, even though thirty-day period has expired, plaintiff need not show excusable neglect for court to enlarge

Read More »

BRENDA RUTH AND HERBERT RUTH, her husband, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN ERIC HIGGINS AND ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY.

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 270a

Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Motion to strike insurer’s proposal for settlement filed pursuant to rule 1.442 and section 768.79 granted — Attorney’s fees provisions of section 768.79 do not apply to actions to enforce PIP claims, which are governed by specific provisions of section 627.428

Read More »

JOAN FONTANA MORONI, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Defendant.

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 215a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Motion to strike offer of judgment served pursuant to section 768.79 denied — Action to recover PIP benefits, which clearly states that it is action for money damages, is included within scope of section 768.79, which covers all civil actions for damages — Section 627.736.(8), which incorporates attorney fee provision of section 627.428, does not conflict with section 768.79

Read More »

ANITA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 212a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — Offer of judgment statute, which provides that either plaintiff or defendant in civil lawsuit for damages can recover its attorney’s fees and costs, conflicts with PIP statute, which provides that only insureds and not insurers can recover their attorney’s fees and costs, when both statutes are attempted to be applied to PIP lawsuit — Conflict must be resolved in favor of PIP statute — If insurer files offer of judgment in PIP case, insured my procedurally move to strike offer without having to wait for unfavorable judgment or for insurer to attempt to seek attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to its offer of judgment — To allow insurer to file an offer of judgment in PIP case and to delay ruling when insured moves to strike offer of judgment would have chilling effect upon insured’s pursuit of statutory right to PIP benefits

Read More »

CONNECTICUT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant/Defendant(s), vs. BAYSIDE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, (as attorney-in-fact for Dayana Gonzalez), Appellee/Plaintiff(s).

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 91d

Attorney’s fees — Justiciable issues — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Dispute between medical provider and insurer arising from insurer’s withholding of percentage of amounts due pursuant to federal law because of provider’s failure to supply completed W-9 form — Applicability of IRS regulations and justification for insurer’s noncompliance with express provisions of state statute requiring it to pay provider’s invoice, even though ultimately resolved by county court in favor of insurer, were justiciable issues of law precluding a finding that action was frivolous — Alternatively, provider correctly argued to county court that insurer had failed to plead entitlement to fees

Read More »

EUGENE MASSARO, Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 297a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Interest — Where defendant insurer agreed in writing to pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and delivered payment more than 20 days after making such agreement, plaintiff’s counsel entitled to statutory 12% interest on settlement proceeds from date defendant agreed in writing to pay attorney’s fees to date of delivery of attorney fees check — Attorney’s fees awarded for preparation of motion to tax additional attorney fees based on 1.5 hours expended and $200 per hour — Requested hourly rate falls within range of fees charged within community for similar difficult and complex work as relates to specific issues in case

Read More »

FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. AMY HALLORAN, Respondent.

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 710a

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 777a

Attorney’s fees — Insured entitled to recover attorney’s fees incurred in successfully defending certiorari petition filed by insurance carrier — Appellate court unable to review underlying factual issues that were argued in support of or in opposition to insured’s motion for protective order against taking of attorney’s deposition given lack of transcript of proceedings below or proper substitute

Read More »
Skip to content