ENDURANCE ASSURANCE CORPORATION

v.

ZOGHBI

S.D. Fla. | 2021-01-22

No. 18-23960-CIV

District Court, S.D. Florida (2021)

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.

Holding

The court held that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding attorneys' fees was correct and adopted it, granting the defendants' motion.

Facts & Procedural History

Defendants moved for attorneys' fees. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion. Plaintiff objected, arguing the Report failed to address c…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

De Novo Review Attorney'S Fees

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse De Novo Review cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report & Recommendation (“Report”) on Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees. (DE 55).

The Report recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion insofar as it establishes Defendants’ are entitled to fees under Florida law. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report (DE 58) and Defendants filed a response (DE 61).

In part of its objections, Plaintiff asserts that the Report does not acknowledge or distinguish certain Florida Supreme Court cases cited in its response to Defendants’ motion, cases that “support the proposition that the triggering mechanism for a policyholder’s recovery of attorney fees under Section 627.428 is the incorrect denial of benefits.” (DE 58).

The Court notes that while every case Plaintiff cited was not explicitly addressed in the Report, Plaintiff’s arguments were in fact comprehensively discussed.¹

Accordingly, after a careful review of the Report, the record, and applicable case law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report (DE 55) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.

2. Defendants’ motion (DE 48) is GRANTED.

3. Within 45 days of this Order, Defendants shall submit an application for an award of fees in compliance with Local Rule 7.3. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 21st day of January, 2021. A ae,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

equivalent in order to recover attorney fees under Section 627.428(1),” a proposition the Report clearly examined and discussed. /d.

Footnotes

1 The Court also notes that Plaintiff did not actually present any discussion on some of the cases it now argues the Report did not address. Rather, Plaintiff only provided reference to such cases within string cites. These cases include, for example, Danis Indus. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 645 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1994) and Wollard v. Lloyd’s and Companies of Lloyd’s, 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1983), which were cited following the proposition that “[t]he Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an insured must show the entry of a judgment or its functional Moreover, following a de novo review of all portions of the Report to which Plaintiff objects, the Court finds that Defendants have established entitlement to attorneys’ fees under Fla. Stat. § 627.428.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Wollard v. Lloyd's & Cos. OF Lloyd's, 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1983)
Danis Indus. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 645 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1994)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw