CHARLES STEWART AGENCY, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MOLLY LEE DOISY, 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.
An insurance agency was found liable for fraudulent misrepresentation after representing that a client had fire insurance coverage when none had been obtained, resulting in an uncompensated loss. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff but reversed the trial court's award of attorney's fees, holding that fraud actions do not constitute an exception to the general rule limiting attorney's fee awards.
Attorney's fees may not be awarded in a fraud action alleging misrepresentation regarding insurance procurement. The court affirmed the jury verdict on the underlying fraud claim but reversed the award of attorney's fees, holding that fraud does not constitute an exception to the well-established rule limiting attorney's fee awards to situations where authorized by contract, statute, or equity principles.
[1] Attorney's fees are generally allowable only when authorized by contract, statute, or equity.
[2] Fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the procurement of insurance coverage does not, in itself, create an exception to the general rule for awarding attorney's fees.
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“the often stated rule is that attorney's fees for the prosecution of an action may be allowed only: (1) where authorized by contract, (2) when authorized by statute, or (3) where equity allows attorney's fees from a fund or estate which has been benefited by the rendering of the legal services”
Establishes the three-part test governing when attorney's fees may be awarded in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff claimed that Charles Stewart Agency, an insurance agency, represented to her that she had fire insurance coverage on her residence when …
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 Fraudulent Misrepresentation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated appeals arise from the same cause. The first is an appeal by the defendant from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict, and the second is from an interlocutory post-judgment order allowing an attorney’s fee to the plaintiff. Although we find no reversible error is shown upon the appeal from the final judgment, we reverse the order allowing an attorney’s fee to the plaintiff for the prosecution of the cause.
The plaintiff recovered the final judgment first appealed upon a complaint that the defendant, an insurance agency, represented to her that she had fire insurance coverage upon her residence when in fact such coverage had not been obtained and that as a result, she suffered an uncompensated loss. Cf. Poliakoff v. National Emblem Insurance Company, 249 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 254 So. 2d 790 (Fla.1971). The trial judge allowed an attorney’s fee to the plaintiff upon the theory that an attorney’s fee is allowable in cases of a fraudulent representation regarding the procurement of insurance coverage.
We find no case that supports such an allowance. The often stated rule is that attorney’s fees for the prosecution of an action may be allowed only: (1) where authorized by contract, (2) when authorized by statute, or (3) where equity allows attorney’s fees from a fund or estate which has been benefited by the rendering of the legal services. See Hampton v. Fairchild-Florida Construction Company, 341 So. 2d 759, 761 (Fla.1976). Clearly, these exceptions are inapplicable to this case.
Furthermore, courts specifically addressing the question of whether attorney’s fees may be awarded in a fraud action have rejected the proposition that fraud actions constitute an exception to the above stated rule. Martin v. Paskow, 339 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1977); Weisenberg v. Carlton, 233 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 240 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1970).
Furthermore, this case is distinguishable from other cases allowing the recovery of attorney’s fees incurred in a separate action as an element of damages. See Sheridan v. Greenburg, 391 So. 2d 234, 236-238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) and cases cited therein. Here, the attorney’s fees awarded were incurred between the parties only in the instant law suit.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and the order allowing an attorney’s fee to the plaintiff is reversed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
ERVIN, J., and LILES, WOODIE A. (Retired), and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Retired), Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dependable Life Ins. Co. v. Harris, 510 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…court restricted recovery of attorney’s fees under this statute to those attributable to litigating the issues of insurance coverage, and disallowed fees to prosecute a tort claim against a third party. And in Charles Stewart Agency, Inc. v. Doisy, 399 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), a suit premised on misrepresentation or fraud against an insurance agent, the court held no attorney’s fees were recoverable. [*990] Since in this case the court failed to differentiate between the attorney time and effort attri…
-
Strader v. Oakley, 410 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…llowed only when specifically provided by contract or statute. Estate of Hampton v. Fairchild-Fla. Const. Co., 341 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1977); Rivera v. Deauville Hotel, Employers Service Corp., 277 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1973); Charles Stewart Agency v. Doisy, 399 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Since the restriction enforced in this case is not among the covenants imposed by explicit contractual provisions in Strader’s deed, he did not expressly agree to pay attorney’s fees in an action to enforce it. Therefore, the tr…
-
Underwood Anderson & Assocs., Inc. v. Lillo's Italian Rest., Inc., 36 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…An agent who is not a party to an insurance contract has no authority to pay on the policy; thus, the purpose of the statute is not served by making agents liable for fees incurred in enforcing the policy. In Charles Stewart Agency, Inc. v. Doisy, 399 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the plaintiff sued her insurance agent for misrepresenting that she had fire insurance coverage for her home. A jury found in her favor. Although the trial court awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees against the agent, this cour…
Authorities Cited
- Est. of Eunice G. Hampton v. Fairchild-Florida Constr. Co., 341 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1976)
- Parker v. State, 249 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Sheridan v. Greenberg, 391 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Erwin Hunter v. State, 391 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Willern Koblinski v. Koblinski, 339 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Weisenberg v. Carlton, 233 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Confederation Life Ass'n v. Arminan, 240 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1970)
- Headrick v. State, 240 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1970)
- MacKey v. State, 254 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1971)
- Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Urquiaga, 254 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1971)