AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICK SETTEMBRINO AND MARIA SETTEMBRINO, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Aetna Insurance Company appeals from judgments awarding the Settembrinos interest and attorney's fees on a jury verdict for fire insurance damages. The court affirms the attorney's fees award but reverses the interest judgment because the jury verdict did not include an interest calculation.
The judgment for attorney's fees is affirmed as a reasonable exercise of discretion considering the protracted six-year litigation, but the interest judgment is reversed because the jury verdict made no reference to or allowance for interest, and trial judges may not add interest when the jury verdict does not include it.
[1] An award of attorney's fees may consider factors beyond the amount of the final judgment, including the duration of litigation.
[2] A trial judge does not abuse discretion in awarding attorney's fees when supported by an evidentiary hearing and considering factors such as protracted litigation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Other factors besides the amount of final judgment may be considered in determining the amount of attorney's fees.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing attorney's fees awards in insurance cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAetna issued fire insurance policies to the Settembrinos covering a building and contents that were damaged by fire in December 1970. A jury trial det…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Fees Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant/defendant/insurer takes this consolidated appeal from an “interest judgment” and a “judgment for attorney’s fees” both rendered in favor of appellees/plain-tiffs/insureds.
The underlying facts of this case can be found in Aetna Insurance Company v. Settembrino, 324 So. 2d 113 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), an interlocutory appeal from a partial summary judgment, wherein we affirmed a judgment which held appellant, Aetna Insurance Company, liable to appellees, the Settembrinos, as assignees, under two poli cies of fire insurance issued by appellant and covering a building and its contents which were subsequently damaged by fire.
At the end of a jury trial on the damage question, a verdict was returned for appel-lees in the amount of NINETEEN THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED ($19,600.00) DOLLARS. Final judgment was thereupon entered in the principal amount “plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees to be determined at a later time.” Subsequently, the trial judge entered a judgment for interest in the sum of SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED, SIXTY-FOUR ($7,564.33) DOLLARS and THIRTY-THREE CENTS, computed from the date of the loss in December 28, 1970, to the date of the verdict on June 3, 1977, at the rate of six (6%) per cent on the principal sum of NINETEEN THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED ($19,600.00) DOLLARS. Pursuant to Section 627.428, Florida Statutes (1975), a judgment for attorney’s fees, in the amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND ($15,000.00) DOLLARS was also entered in favor of appellees.
From the above judgments, appellant has taken this consolidated appeal. Appellees have cross-appealed from the judgment on attorney’s fees.
Firstly, regarding the award of attorney’s fees, appellant contends that said fees are excessive, in light of the jury verdict. Appellees, on the other hand, argue that the award is inadequate. We disagree on both counts. Other factors besides the amount of final judgment may be considered in determining the amount of attorney’s fees. Republic National Life Insurance Company v. Valdes, 348 So. 2d 566 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). In light of the protracted litigation (six years) involved in this lawsuit, we cannot say that, pursuant to an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the trial judge abused his discretion in entering the aforementioned award. Massachusetts Indemnity & Life Insurance Company v. Schupper, 301 So. 2d 789 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); All-Star Insurance Corporation v. Scandia, Inc., 353 So. 2d 171 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).
Secondly, regarding the “interest judgment,” it is appellant’s contention that the trial judge erred in entering an interest judgment when the jury verdict made no reference to, or allowance for, interest therein. In that the jury verdict is silent with respect to interest, it is our opinion that the trial judge did, in fact, so err. Schulman v. Cort Aviation Corporation, 330 So. 2d 114 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Commodore Plaza at Century 21 Condominium Association, Inc. v. Cohen, 350 So. 2d 502 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).
Accordingly, the “judgment for attorney’s fees” is affirmed, while the “interest judgment” is reversed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berloni S.P.A. v. Della CASA, LLC, 972 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ated by jury verdict as to the amounts recoverable, interest should be awarded from the date the payment was due.” Celótex Corp. v. Buildex, Inc., 476 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The trial court relied on Aetna Insurance Co. v. Settembrino, 369 So. 2d 954, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), to conclude that it had no authority to assess interest because the verdict failed to allow or indicate the desire to award interest. The supreme court in Argonaut, however, rejected the argument that a jury had to decide ei…
-
Broward Cnty. v. Sattler, 400 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…of the damages in a breach of contract action, a judge has no authority to assess such interest when the case was tried by jury and the verdict failed to allow or indicate the desire to allow interest. See, e. g., Aetna Insurance Co. v. Settembrino, 369 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Newcombe v. South Florida Business Negotiators, Inc., 340 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). However, we find that there is no need to submit the question of interest to the jury where the amount of damages is liquidated and the ass…
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Edward, 445 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Aetna Insurance Company v. Settembrino, 369 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commodore Plaza AT Century 21 Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cohen, 350 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Valdes, 348 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- AETNA Ins. Co. v. Settembrino, 324 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- All-Star Ins. Corp. v. Scandia, Inc., 353 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Mass. Indem. & Life Ins. Co. v. Schupper, 301 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Schulman v. Cort Aviation Corp., 330 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)