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

May 1, 2014 by admin

Trial Court Order: Insurer entitled to attorneys’ fees based upon$1.00 Offer of Judgment / Proposal for Settlement

21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 431a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2105ROME

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees —
Offer of judgment — Where medical provider rejected insurer’s $1.00 offer of
judgment in PIP suit in which insurer raised affirmative defense that demand
letter was not sent to designated recipient, provider sent second demand letter
during pendency of suit, and insurer paid amount demanded in second letter,
insurer’s payment to provider was not confession of judgment entitling provider
to award of attorney’s fees — Final judgment that did not award provider
anything was at least 25% of amount offered by insurer and entitles insurer to
award of attorney’s fees

AMERICAN MRI, LLC (A/A/O JOHN ROMERO), Plaintiffs, vs. USAA CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County. Case No. 08-2558 SP 23 (04). December 31, 2013. Jason Emilios
Dimitris, Judge. Counsel: Michael P. Brodi, Florida Law Center, P.A., N. Miami;
and Marlene S. Reiss, Marlene S. Reiss, P.A., Miami, for Plaintiff. Reuven
Herssein, Herssein Law Group, North Miami, for Defendant.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR


ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS


THIS cause came before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees
and Costs.
After careful consideration of the Motion, arguments made by both parties,
relevant statutes and case law, the Court’s findings are set forth below.

BACKGROUND

American MRI, LLC (Plaintiff) is the assignee of benefits of a PIP insurance
policy issued by Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company (Defendant).
Plaintiff provided medical services to the policy holders, was assigned the
benefits of the policy, and sent a demand letter to the Defendant on May 1, 2007
in accordance with Florida Statute § 627.736(11). Plaintiff filed suit after the
Defendant failed to pay the claim. The Defendant filed an Answer which included
an affirmative defense that the Plaintiff’s May 1, 2007 demand letter failed to
comply with the statutory requirements of § 627.736(11). Subsequently, the
Defendant moved for summary judgment based upon this defense specifically
arguing that the demand letter was not mailed to the designated recipient. In
response, Plaintiff moved this Court1 to
abate the action in order to allow them the opportunity to send a second demand
letter that would cure the defect that Defendant alleged. Prior to the this
Court issuing a decision as to whether to abate the action, the Plaintiff sent
out a second demand letter. On May 6, 2009, this Court held that Plaintiff’s
first demand letter sufficiently complied with § 627.736(11), but deferred
ruling as to whether the letter demanded the proper amount. On May 27, 2009, the
Defendant paid Plaintiff the amount requested in the second demand letter.
On September 9, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for entitlement to
attorney fees and costs pursuant to F.S. § 627.428 which was granted by this
Court. Specifically, on November 6, 2009, this Court held that Defendant’s
payment of the amount requested in the second demand letter was the equivalent
of a confession of judgment and entered Final Judgment awarding fees and costs
on June 29, 2010. Following an appeal by the Defendant on March 19, 2012, the
Circuit Court reversed this Court’s determination that the Plaintiff was
entitled to attorney’s fees after concluding that Defendant’s payment pursuant
to the second demand letter did not fit within the parameters of the “confession
of judgment” rule. Circuit Court Opinion at 5. In explaining its reasoning, the
Circuit Court stated that Defendant’s “payment to settle the claim was not a
unilateral decision catalyzed by the initiated lawsuit. But rather was prompted
by Plaintiff’s second demand letter and representations that it would not seek
attorney’s fees should Defendant pay pursuant to that demand letter.” Id.
This case was remanded back to this Court to consider Defendant’s Motion for
Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Proposal for Settlement and for further proceedings
consistent with the Circuit Court’s ruling. Id. at 6.
Following remand, the Defendant filed a Motion for Final Judgment in favor of
the Defendant pursuant to the Circuit Court’s May 19, 2012 Opinion finding that
the Defendant’s May 27, 2009 payment to Plaintiff was not a confession of
judgment. Plaintiff, in response, filed an opposition to the Defendant’s Motion
for entry of Final Judgment. On October 4, 2012, this Court entered Final
Judgment for Defendant. Following entry of Final Judgment, Plaintiff moved this
Court to vacate Final Judgment pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540. On December 13,
2013, this Court heard argument from both parties on Defendant’s Motion for
Attorney’s Fees and Costs and Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Final Judgment.
Following presentment of argument, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to
Vacate Final Judgment on December 31, 2013 and therefore, the only Motion now
before this Court is Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs pursuant
to F.S. § 768.79.

ANALYSIS

F.S. § 768.79 states in relevant part as follows:

(1) In any civil action for damages filed in the courts of this
state, if a defendant files an offer of judgment which is not accepted by the
plaintiff within 30 days, the defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable
costs and attorney’s fees incurred by her or him or on the defendant’s behalf
pursuant to a policy of liability insurance or other contract from the date of
the filing of the offer if the judgment is one of no liability or the judgment
obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent less than such offer, and the
court shall set off such costs and attorney’s fees against the
award.

. . .

F.S. § 768.79.
In Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, the Defendant argues that
they are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in reliance upon the fact that on
February 13, 2009, Defendant served a Proposal for Settlement on Plaintiff
offering $1.00 which expired and therefore was rejected. Defendant’s Motion for
Attorney’s Fees and Costs p. 2. Under F.S. § 768.79, if there is a judgment of
no liability or one for at least twenty-five percent less than the offer of
settlement, the offeror in this case, USAA Casualty, is entitled to attorney’s
fees and costs. The Defendant states in its Motion that it is entitled to
attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to F.S. § 768.79 since the Circuit Court and
trial court specifically found that USAA’s payment to Plaintiff was not a
confession of judgment in this action, and as a result, Plaintiff’s final
judgment which did not award Plaintiff anything was “[at least] 25% of the
amount offered by USAA.” Id. at 3. This Court finds that USAA obtained a
qualifying judgment and that their offer of judgment complied with the technical
mandates of the statute.
It is hereby, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s
Fees and Costs is HEREBY GRANTED. The Defendant shall file within 14 days of
this Order a Motion with supporting case law as to the reasonableness of an
attorney’s fees award under F.S. § 768.79(7)(b) especially in light of
Central Motor Company d/b/a Central Hyundai v. Earline P. Shaw, 3 So.3d
367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D160a]. Plaintiff shall file any
response thereto within 14 days of Defendant’s filing.
__________________
1As a Section Four case, this case was
originally before Judge Eric Hendon. Judge Jason Emilios Dimitris assumed all
Section Four cases as of April 2013.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Winn-Dixie, website, customers, prescription, place of public accommodation, coupons, refills, privileges, disabled, advantages, accommodations, visually-impaired, auxiliary, public accommodation, inaccessible, barrier, offerings, sighted, majority opinion, intangible, enjoyment, locator, rewards, card, district court, facilities, shopping, software, communicate, in-store – The difficulties caused by the customer’s inability to access much of the store’s website constituted a concrete and particularized injury that was not conjectural or hypothetical, and would continue if the website remained inaccessible; [2]-The statutory language in Title III of the ADA defining “public accommodation” was unambiguous and clear, and public accommodations were limited to actual, physical places, and websites were not a place of public accommodation under the statute; [3]-The store’s website did not constitute an intangible barrier to the customer’s ability to access and enjoy fully the physical grocery store; [4]-Absent congressional action that broadened the definition of “places of public accommodation” to include websites, the appellate court could not extend ADA liability to the facts presented.
  • Civil rights — Employment discrimination — Pharmacist employed by Department of Veterans Affairs brought action against Secretary, alleging that her managers at VA medical center discriminated against her based on her gender and age, retaliated against her because she engaged in protected activity, and subjected her to hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act — Retaliation — Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires personnel actions to be made free from any discrimination — Supreme Court’s decision in pharmacist’s case, which held that federal-sector provision of ADEA did not require plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of a challenged personnel action, undermined to the point of abrogation Eleventh Circuit’s prior panel precedent holding that Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires but-for causation — Standard that Supreme Court articulated for claims under ADEA’s federal-sector provision controls cases arising under Title VII’s nearly identical federal-sector provision — Retaliatory hostile work environment — An actionable federal-sector Title VII retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim must describe conduct that rises to the level of personnel actions and must be evaluated under “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” standard rather than the more stringent “severe or pervasive” standard
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable, related, and necessary medical treatment — Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Opposing affidavit — Trial court abused its discretion in granting motion to strike affidavit of independent medical examiner based on plaintiff’s claim that affidavit “baldly repudiated” affiant’s deposition testimony regarding relationship between injuries and accident and medical necessity of chiropractic treatment — Because affiant’s testimony raised genuine issue of material fact, as it clearly conflicted with testimony of treating chiropractor, order granting summary judgment in favor of assignee/medical provider reversed
  • Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Jurors — Peremptory challenge — Race neutral explanation — Genuineness — New trial — Evidence — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on its improper denial of plaintiff’s peremptory challenge of juror — Trial court failed to apply proper legal standard in denying plaintiff’s peremptory strike of juror where it failed to recognize the presumption that plaintiff was exercising her peremptory challenge in a nondiscriminatory manner and hold defendants to their burden of proving purposeful discrimination — Fact that juror was sole African American juror left on the panel is, standing alone, insufficient to override a genuine race-neutral challenge — Trial court erred in granting a new trial based on its determination that verdict finding one of the defendants 100% liable for the fatal accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence — Order shows that trial court improperly re-weighed the evidence and acted as a seventh juror in doing so — Trial court erred in permitting jury to hear evidence related to defendant’s driving history where not only was the evidence unduly prejudicial, but the citations bore no similarity to the circumstances at issue and had no relevance to defendant’s alleged negligence at the time of the accident — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion notwithstanding verdict which asserted that defendant should not be liable for the total amount of damages to co-defendant’s tractor-trailer — A new-trial order and order for judgment notwithstanding verdict are mutually inconsistent and may not be granted simultaneously unless granted on the express condition that the order granting the judgment notwithstanding verdict only becomes effective if the order granting new trial is reversed on appeal, which did not happen in this case
  • Workers’ compensation — Prosthetic devices — Limitation of actions — Claimant who had screws and rods inserted in her spine as a result of an injury occurring in 1990 — Judge of compensation claims erred in rejecting employer/carrier’s statute of limitations defense to claim for pain management and a replacement mechanical bed — While applicable 1989 version of workers’ compensation law contained an exemption from its statute of limitations to the right for remedial attention relating to the insertion or attachment of a prosthetic device, there is no evidence that either the prosthesis, or the surgery required to insert it, is causing the need for the requested benefits as opposed to the underlying condition that necessitated the prosthesis in the first place — Fact that claimant may have a prosthetic device is not, standing alone, sufficient to prevent statute of limitations from accruing

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