DAVID JOSEPH LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of post-judgment attorney's fees and costs under § 627.427(2), holding the statute does not authorize such fees for collection procedures after judgment entry, though recommending legislative consideration.
Section 627.427(2), Florida Statutes, does not authorize the award of attorney's fees and costs incurred subsequent to the rendition of a judgment against an insurance carrier.
[1] Section 627.427(2), Florida Statutes, does not authorize assessment of attorney's fees and costs incurred in post-judgment collection procedures against an insurance carr…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant obtained a judgment against GEICO and had to resort to procedures under § 627.427(2) to collect it, incurring attorney's fees and costs in t…
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 Insurance Regulation cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order denying appellant attorney’s fees and costs incurred when appellant had to resort to the procedures set forth in § 627.427(2), Florida Statutes, to collect a judgment against appellee, Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). We agree with the trial court which held:
F.S. 627.427(2) does not specifically authorize the assessment of attorney’s fees and costs against an insurance carrier for services rendered by the plaintiff’s attorney in implementing the procedure set forth in § 627.427, F.S. where the insurance carrier fails to pay the judgment within sixty (60) days after the entry thereof.
Appellant relies on the last sentence of § 627.427(2) which provides that, after an insurer’s certificate of authority has been revoked for failure to satisfy a judgment or decree, the insurer will not be issued a new certificate of authority until the judgment is satisfied and “until the expenses and fees incurred in the case are also paid by the insurer.” The above-quoted wording does not authorize the award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred subsequent to the conclusion of a case in which a judgment has been rendered. Therefore, we affirm the trial court.
Although we have concluded that § 627.-427(2) does not authorize the award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred subsequent to the rendition of a judgment, this case illustrates the need for such statutory authorization. We, therefore, recommend its consideration by the Legislature,
AFFIRMED,
MILLS, C. J:, and. THOMPSON, J., concur
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc. v. United States, 850 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2003)…gainst the insurer and in litigating whether the parties had entered into a binding settlement. [*467] We approve that decision. In contrast, in reaching its decision in Morris, the Third District relied on Lee v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 388 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and Bohlinger v. Higginbotham, 70 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1954). Neither case, however, supports the conclusion reached in Morris. In Lee, the First District concluded that a different statute — section 627.427(2), Florida Statutes (197…
-
Travelers Indem. Co. OF Am. v. Morris, 390 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…. 2d 456 (Fla.4th DCA 1978)-permit fees only for services involved in obtaining a judgment against a carrier, and not for those required to effect compliance with, collection of, or execution upon that judgment. Lee v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 388 So. 2d 346 (Fla.lst DCA 1980); see, Bohlinger v. Higginbotham, 70 So. 2d 911, 916 (Fla.1954). Second, since we did not remand the issue to the lower tribunal as permitted by Fla.R.App.P. 9.400(b), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees for services…