LILA MCCONNELL GREENOUGH, APPELLANT,
v.
AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Greenough appealed the denial of attorney's fees in a dispute with her insurer over homeowner's policy coverage for stolen property. The court held that because Greenough recovered less than Aetna's pre-suit settlement offer, she did not "prevail" against the insurer and thus was not entitled to attorney's fees under Florida Statute 627.428.
An insured is not entitled to recover attorney's fees under Section 627.428 when she recovers less than the insurance company's pre-suit settlement offer, even if the insurer's answer contained some denials, because she did not "prevail" against the insurer.
[1] An insured is not entitled to attorney's fees under a statute authorizing such fees for prevailing against an insurance company when the insured recovers an amount less t…
[2] An insurance company's denial of coverage for a loss, in addition to admitting a lesser amount of coverage, may render a subsequent settlement offer ineffective to preclu…
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“who prevails against an insurance company”
Describes the statutory requirement under Section 627.428 for entitlement to attorney's fees
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreenough held an Aetna homeowner's policy issued in December 1977. In November 1980, silverware and money were stolen from her home. Greenough claime…
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 Coverage Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for attorney’s fees.
Lila McConnell Greenough sued Aetna Casualty & Surety Company to determine the amount of insurance coverage afforded Greenough pursuant to a home owner’s policy that Aetna had originally written for Greenough in December 1977. Greenough had made a claim against Aetna for a loss in November 1980 of silverware and money stolen from her home, which was covered by the Aetna policy. Greenough alleged the policy afforded coverage for loss of personal property up to $20,000. Aetna’s answer alleged the policy afforded a maximum of $1,100 in coverage for loss of silverware and money. From a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding Gree-nough was entitled to recover $1,000 Gree-nough perfected this appeal.
In a post judgment hearing on the question of Greenough’s entitlement to attorney’s fees under Section 627.428, Florida Statutes (1979), which authorizes an award of attorney’s fees to an insured or a beneficiary who prevails against an insurance company, Aetna contended that she was not entitled to attorney’s fees because Aet-na had offered to settle the claim for $1,100, the amount of coverage the company admitted was furnished by the current policy. Since Greenough recovered slightly less than Aetna had offered, attorney’s fees were not recoverable under Section 627.428. Greenough, on the other hand, contended that Aetna’s pleading denied the theft as well as coverage. Therefore, the offer of settlement of $1,100 was not effective to preclude recovery of attorney’s fees.
In its answer to the third amended complaint, Aetna denied that the policy Gree-nough sued upon was effective at the time of the theft. However, Aetna expressly alleged that:
“The policy in full force and effect on the date of the subject loss provided under coverage Part C Personal Property:
(1) $100.00 on money, bank notes, bullion, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware, platinum coins and metals.
(7) $1,000.00 for loss by theft of silverware, silverplated ware, goldware, gold-plated ware and pewterware.” Eleven hundred dollars was the offer made by Aetna before suit was even filed. One thousand dollars was the award. Because she did not recover more than Aetna offered to pay her under the policy, Gree-nough did not prevail against Aetna and so was not entitled to recover an attorney’s fee pursuant to Section 627.428, Florida Statutes (1979). Travelers Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 387 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1980); Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Arbitration, 398 So. 2d 469 (Fla.4th DCA 1981).
The judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Danis Indus. Corp. & Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 629 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ch is greater than any offer of settlement previously tendered by the insurer. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Shafer & Miller, Inc., 515 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 881 (Fla.1988); Greenough v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 449 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Here, the record reflects no offer of settlement tendered by Seaboard to GIT. Accordingly, the trial court correctly awarded attorney’s fees to GIT because GIT prevailed against Seaboard when it obtained a judgment against appel…
-
Baker Protective Servs. v. FP Inc. & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 659 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…515 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So. 2d 881 (Fla.1988); accord Danis Indus. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 629 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), aff'd, 645 So. 2d 420 (1994); Greenough v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 449 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); cf. C.U. Assocs. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1177 (Fla.1985). Here, although Baker Protective did prevail in its breach of contract claim against FPI, it is not the prevailing party against F & D because Baker Protective’s r…
-
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shafer & Miller, Inc., 515 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…n amount greater than the verdict subsequently returned by a jury, correctly held that Westinghouse was not entitled to attorney’s fees as a prevailing party under section 627.428, Florida Statutes (1985). See Greenough v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 449 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); cf. C.U. Assocs., Inc. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1177 (Fla.1985) (construing section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1981)). As the remaining points presented do not merit discussion, the judgment under review is affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- King v. State, 398 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Luisa Rodriguez, 387 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1980)