Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

April 3, 2014 by admin

627.428 Attorneys’ Fee Statute does not apply to UM carriers absent a dispute over whether the policy provides coverage

39 Fla. L. Weekly D627a


Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Uninsured motorist — No
error in denying plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees after insurer
voluntarily paid remainder of plaintiff’s UM claim where plaintiff’s prayer for
relief included demand for reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to sections
627.428 and 627.727(8) — Statutes at issue do not apply in action against UM
insurer unless there is dispute over whether policy provides coverage for an
uninsured motorist proven to be liable, and instant case did not involve such a
dispute

COREY WAPNICK, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
4th District. Case No. 4D12-4080. March 26, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court
for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Robert L. Pegg, Judge;
L.T. Case No. 312007CA011240. Counsel: Annabel C. Majewski of Wasson &
Associates, Chartered, Miami, and Clifford M. Miller of Miller Law Offices, Vero
Beach, for appellant. Mark D. Tinker and Charles W. Hall of Banker Lopez Gassler
P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee.
(Per Curiam.) This case comes to us a second time for review. See Wapnick
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
, 54 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Wapnick appeals the trial court’s order denying his request for attorney’s
fees1 after State Farm voluntarily paid
the remainder of his uninsured motorist claim. We affirm the trial court’s
ruling.
Although the parties frame their arguments around Florida Statutes Sections
627.428 and 624.155 (2013), there is no need for extended analysis under either
section. In his amended complaint, Wapnick specifically prayed for relief
stating “[s]hould the defendant dispute whether the policy provides coverage,
plaintiff also demands reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §
§627.428 and 627.727(8).”
Section 627.727(8) states that “[t]he provisions of s. 627.428 do not apply
to any action brought pursuant to this section against the uninsured motorist
insurer unless there is a dispute over whether the policy provides coverage for
an uninsured motorist proven to be liable for the accident.” § 627.727(8), Fla.
Stat. (2013). Since there was never such a dispute, section 627.428 does not
apply to this case, and Wapnick is not entitled to attorney’s fees.
Section 627.727(8) and its limitation on recovery under section 627.428 were
not discussed by either party, and were thus not part of the trial court’s
written order. However, our supreme court has held that “if a trial court
reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, it will be upheld if there
is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.” Dade Cnty. Sch.
Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA
, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999). Therefore, since
there is a basis in the record to support the fact that section 627.428 does not
apply, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.
Affirmed. (Warner, Gross and Conner, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1Although the parties frame the issue as
reviewing the trial court’s order denying Wapnick’s motion for summary judgment
and granting State Farm’s motion to dismiss, the real issue is the denial of
attorney’s fees.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982