2006

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1669a
932 So. 2d 516

Insurance — Liability — Where insurer disputed coverage for patent infringement and unfair competition claims brought against insured, but agreed to defend under reservation of rights, and appellate court found that claims were not covered by policy and remanded for trial court to determine insurer’s right to recover costs of defense incurred while defending insured, trial court did not err in finding that insurer was entitled to its defense costs, fees, and expenses — Sending reservation of rights letter and appointing mutually agreeable defense counsel is an appropriate action when an insurance company disputes coverage — Insured agreed to defense counsel and accepted the defense provided and, accordingly, “necessarily agreed to the terms” on which insurer extended its offer to provide a defense

31 Fla. L. Weekly D2658a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Homeowners — Error to deny statutory attorney’s fees incurred by insured in defending declaratory judgment action initiated by insurer, which claimed it had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured — Insurer’s voluntary dismissal of its declaratory action conferred a benefit on the defendant insured in the form of representation in the underlying tort suit against insured

31 Fla. L. Weekly S358a
932 So. 2d 1067

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — In a suit for benefits under a personal injury protection policy, an insurer may recover attorney’s fees pursuant to the offer of judgment statute — A suit for PIP benefits is a “civil action for damages” — Validity of offer — Insurer’s proposal for settlement, which stated that it would be a full and final satisfaction and settlement of any and all of insured’s claims and causes of action in, or arising out of the case, and provided that insured would be required to execute a “general release,” in favor of insurer, “which will be expressly limited to all claims, causes of action, etc., that have accrued through the date,” of insured’s acceptance of the proposal, was too ambiguous to satisfy rule 1.442 — Settlement proposals must clarify which of an offeree’s outstanding claims against the offeror will be extinguished by any proposed release — Because insurer’s settlement proposal failed to eliminate ambiguity regarding insured’s outstanding uninsured motorist clam, it cannot support award of attorney’s fees

31 Fla. L. Weekly D626a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1926a

Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Prejudgment interest on award of attorney’s fees accrues from date entitlement is determined — Error to award interest on attorney’s fees from date jury rendered its verdict on coverage under insurance policy rather than from date court determined entitlement to attorney’s fees — Attorney’s fees are not awardable for time spent determining amount of fees — Error to award fees for time spent litigating whether fee was limited to $8,000 maximum — Civil procedure — Dismissal for failure to prosecute — Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute where plaintiff had requested court to take action, either by way of entering a final judgment or ordering a hearing — Once parties to suit have fulfilled their duties, it is court’s responsibility to proceed

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D548b

31 Fla. L. Weekly D2610a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Circuit court departed from essential requirements of law by affirming county court’s award of fees to insured at rate of $400 per hour, with a 2.5 multiplier, in insured’s action against insurer to recover for unpaid chiropractic treatments — Where there was nothing to suggest that insured had any difficulty obtaining competent counsel to pursue his PIP claim, application of multiplier, resulting in a fee of $1,000 an hour for 193.75 hours, was a manifest injustice

31 Fla. L. Weekly D2955b

Insurance — Bad faith — Attorney’s fees — Assignee of third-party bad faith claim is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 627.428 when the assignee obtains favorable judgment in the bad faith action — Multiplier — Trial court has discretion to award multiplier to attorney’s fees awarded under section 627.428 when there is risk of nonpayment — Court rejects insurer’s argument that policy language in Sarkis v. Allstate Insurance Co. leaves open the question of whether supreme court’s decision in Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom is still good law and instead views Sarkis decision as reaffirming holding in Quanstrom that use of multiplier could be appropriate under section 627.428 when there is a risk of nonpayment

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1643a

Insurance — Life — Wrongful denial of premium waiver benefits — Attorney’s fees — Where insured’s initial claim for waiver of premium payments based on disability mistakenly disclosed that her debilitating illness predated the issuance of the policies at issue, although, in fact, the onset of her illness occurred well after the issuance of the policies, insurer’s denial of claim based on the erroneous information provided by the insured did not rise to the level of wrongful conduct necessary to impose attorney’s fee award against the insurer — Court rejects insured’s contention that section 627.428 imposes strict liability on an insurer for attorney’s fees even in cases where a valid claim was not submitted

31 Fla. L. Weekly S762a
944 So. 2d 252

Attorney’s fees — Appellate — Insurance — Under plain language of section 627.428(1), an appellate court may not award attorney’s fees to an insured unless the insured prevails on appeal

31 Fla. L. Weekly D1930a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Appellate attorney’s fees — Where insurer appealed county court order granting attorney’s fees to insured, including a 1.5 multiplier, raising only the appropriateness of the multiplier, appellate division of circuit court departed from essential requirements of law in awarding insured appellate attorney’s fees upon affirming county court order — Party is not entitled to fees for time spent litigating the propriety of a fee multiplier — Order awarding appellate attorney’s fees as a sanction under section 57.105 for filing a frivolous appeal departed from essential requirements of law because it did not contain specific findings that appeal was not supported by facts or application of law