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
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 8, 2017 by admin

Attorney’s fees — No error in denying motion for attorney’s fees based on proposals for settlement after finding proposals to be unacceptably ambiguous — Costs — Error to fail to address motion for costs pursuant to section 57.041(1)

42
Fla. L. Weekly D2572aTop of Form

Attorney’s
fees — No error in denying motion for attorney’s fees based on proposals for
settlement after finding proposals to be unacceptably ambiguous — Costs —
Error to fail to address motion for costs pursuant to section 57.041(1)

NATALIE FERNANDES, as Wife, and
Personal Representative for the Estate of JOSEPH FERNANDES, Appellant, v.
SOVEREIGN HEALTHCARE OF PORT ST. LUCIE, LLC, Owner, Current Licensee and a
Delaware Corporation d/b/a TIFFANY HALL NURSING AND REHAB CENTER, and SOUTHERN
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Appellees. 4th District.
Case No. 4D17-136. December 6, 2017. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Janet C. Croom, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 56-2011-CA-001820. Counsel: Marc D. Johnson of Larson Johnson, P.L., Tampa,
and Stanford R. Solomon of The Solomon Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Thomas A. Valdez of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, and
Robin N. Knanal of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Orlando, for
appellees.

(PER CURIAM.) Appellant Natalie
Fernandes offered each of the Appellees a proposal to settle her wrongful death
action. The settlement proposals were rejected by Appellees. At trial,
Fernandes was the prevailing party. Her subsequent motion for attorney’s fees
and costs was denied as a result of the trial court finding the settlement
proposals to be unacceptably ambiguous.

We affirm all aspects of the final
judgment as it relates to Fernandes’ motion for attorney’s fees. However, as
recognized by both parties, we must remand this case to the trial court with
instructions that it address Fernandes’ motion for costs pursuant to section
57.041(1), Florida Statutes (2014) (“The party recovering judgment shall
recover all his or her legal costs and charges which shall be included in the
judgment . . . .”).

Affirmed in part, Reversed and
Remanded in part
. (LEVINE, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ.,
concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Attorney’s fees — Trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of insureds where filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute — Where insurer admitted coverage for damage to interior of home, but denied coverage for damage to roof, the dispute over cause of loss to roof was an amount of loss issue for appraisers, not a coverage issue for court — Where insurer demanded appraisal prior to filing of lawsuit by insured, and indicated that it would repair any damage awarded in appraisal, the filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute over roof damage
  • Insurance — Commercial liability — Exclusions — Assault and battery — Insurer had no duty to defend insured in action alleging injury arising out of assault and battery on insured’s premises where policy contained endorsement excluding coverage for injury arising out of or resulting from assault or battery
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Assignees — No error in finding that appraisal provision of insured’s homeowner’s policy applied to insured’s assignee and granting insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Policy did not classify appraisal as a duty of the insured — Assignee received an assignment that entitled it to receipt of payment from insurer, and concomitant with that right was its duty to comply with the conditions of the contract that afforded it payment
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Post-loss obligations — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer after finding that insureds had forfeited their policy coverage for failure to provide a sworn proof of loss — Policy did not eliminate duty of insured to provide sworn proof of loss where insurer opted to repair — However, because insureds complied to some extent with policy requirements, and policy required insurer to prove it was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to provide sworn proof of loss, material issues of fact remain
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Watercraft exclusion — No error in determining that watercraft exclusion in the insureds’ homeowners’ insurance policy precluded coverage for injuries sustained by a third party in a boating accident that occurred when the insured son, who had permission to use the boat from the insured father, allowed another third party to pilot the boat while intoxicated — The only applicable exception to the watercraft exclusion unambiguously states that the watercraft exclusion does not apply if the outboard engine or motor is not owned by an insured, and the boat and engine in this case were owned by the insured father — Severability clause, which provides that the policy “applies separately to each insured,” did not render watercraft exclusion ambiguous — Exceptions to the watercraft exclusion are not dependent on the insured who seeks coverage, but on the nature of the watercraft at issue

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. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982