2012

Case Search

SWTONE BARREAU, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PEACHTREE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

37 Fla. L. Weekly D201a
79 So. 3d 843

Insurance — Automobile — Attorney’s fees — Insured prevailing in action against insurer — Nine-month delay in payment of benefits due under policy was not justified by insurer’s suspicions that accident was staged — Error to deny attorney’s fees to insured, who was forced to secure counsel both to respond to initial denial of coverage and to subsequently litigate over insurer’s delay in payment — Insurer entitled to fees for reasonable and necessary hours spent in pursuing those claims — Counsel may also recover reasonable fees incurred in establishing entitlement to fees

Read More »

DIANE PETTY, et al., Petitioners, vs. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

37 Fla. L. Weekly S34a
80 So. 3d 313
Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Action to recover attorney’s fees and costs from FIGA pursuant to section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (2008) — Plain language of section 631.54(3), Florida Statutes (2008), indicates that in order for FIGA to be obligated to pay claims they must originate from an insurance policy, and must be within the coverage of, or be included within risks taken on and losses protected against in, an insurance policy — Where insured’s policy does not expressly provide coverage for a section 627.428(1) award, it is not a covered claim under section 631.54(3) that FIGA must pay — Argument that FIGA should be obligated to pay because fee award is impliedly covered by policy where law subjects every Florida insurance policy to section 627.428(1), is rejected — Fact that section 627.428(1) is implicit part of policy does not mean claim against insurer for fees and costs is part of policy’s “coverage” as required by section 631.54(3)

Read More »

SUSAN GENA, Appellant, v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, as successor in interest to Atlantic Preferred Insurance Company, Inc., Appellee.

37 Fla. L. Weekly D707a
85 So. 3d 1143

Insurance — Homeowners — Attorney’s fees — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Statute of limitations — Where, shortly before statute of limitations expired, FIGA informed insured it would not be able to investigate and settle her claim before expiration date and advised her to seek legal counsel immediately, which advice insured followed resulting ultimately in the parties’ proceeding through the appraisal process and trial court’s award for hurricane damage, trial court properly denied insured’s motion for attorney’s fees which claimed FIGA had denied her claim by affirmative action — In informing her it would not be able to investigate or settle claim before statute of limitations expired, FIGA never denied insured’s claim — Even if so informing insured constituted denial of claim, insured would still not be entitled to fees because such denial would be the result of delay, and the statute provides for attorney’s fees when FIGA denies a claim “by affirmative action, other than delay”

Read More »

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PRIME CARE CHIROPRACTIC CENTERS, P.A. a/a/o DARLENE WOODARD, Appellee.

37 Fla. L. Weekly D1107a
93 So. 3d 345

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Contingency fee multiplier — In awarding attorney’s fees to medical care provider in its action against insurer, trial court abused discretion in applying contingency fee multiplier where there was no competent, substantial evidence that market required a multiplier for provider to obtain competent counsel

Read More »

HALLANDALE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER (a/a/o Kristi Cox), Petitioner, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

37 Fla. L. Weekly D285a
79 So. 3d 868

Attorney’s fees — Appellate — Insurance — Dispute between provider and insurer — Pursuant to section 627.428(1), provider is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees contingent upon it prevailing in underlying action on remand — Order of circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, denying motion for appellate fees quashed

Read More »

RAMON CASTELLANOS, ET AL., Appellants, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL., Appellees.

37 Fla. L. Weekly D1884a
98 So. 3d 1180

Insurance — Condominiums — Assignment of claims — Neither Declaration of Condominium nor Articles of Incorporation prohibited Association from assigning potential insurance claims for hurricane damage to former unit owners — Trial court erred in dismissing former unit owners’ claims against insurer — Trial court did not abuse discretion in certifying unit owners as a class

Read More »

ROSAMMA PANJIKARAN, Appellant, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

37 Fla. L. Weekly D273a
77 So. 3d 1278

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Building ordinance or law endorsement, which provided additional amount of insurance to cover cost of bringing structure into compliance with applicable ordinances and laws — Error to grant summary judgment in favor of insurer in suit filed by insured seeking declaratory judgment as to whether the appraisal demanded by insurer was required with respect to claims made under endorsement and further alleging breach of contract by insurer based on denial of claim — Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether parties disputed the amount of loss, which would require appraisal, or denial of coverage

Read More »

FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SCHNEIDER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, Appellee.

37 Fla. L. Weekly D2631c
104 So. 3d 1115

Insurance — Homeowners — Hurricane damage — Appraisal — Where insured requested mediation, but parties could not reach an agreement, insurer was entitled to pursue appraisal — Trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of insured and in denying insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Reliance on administrative rule which states that if an insured chooses not to participate in mediation or if the mediation is unsuccessful, the insured may choose to proceed under appraisal process set forth in insurance policy, by litigation, or by any other dispute resolution procedure available under Florida law, was in error, as rule improperly modifies and expands statute by providing the insured with an option to resolve disputed property insurance claims not envisioned by statute

Read More »
Skip to content