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.