INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
ACOUSTI ENGINEERING CO. OF FLORIDA, 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.
Insurance Company of North America appeals an award of attorney's fees to Acousti Engineering Company, a subcontractor who successfully pursued a claim against INA as surety on a construction payment bond. The court affirms the award, holding that attorney's fees under Florida's Insurance Code may be recovered even when the underlying claim amount is established through arbitration rather than judicial determination.
Attorney's fees awarded pursuant to section 627.756 of the Florida Insurance Code are not barred merely because the amount due was established through arbitration rather than through a judicial determination.
[1] Attorney's fees awarded pursuant to Florida Insurance Code section 627.756 are not barred because the amount due was established through arbitration rather than a judicia…
[2] A surety on a construction payment bond may be liable for attorney's fees when the principal fails to remit full payment pursuant to the construction contract.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“attorney's fees awarded pursuant to section 627.756 are not barred merely because the amount due the insured was established pursuant to arbitration rather than through a judicial determination”
Establishes the core holding that arbitration does not eliminate the right to recover attorney's fees under the Insurance Code
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAcousti Engineering, a subcontractor, sued INA as surety on a construction payment bond, claiming INA was liable for the general contractor's failure …
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 Recovery cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from an award of attorney’s fees. We affirm.
Acousti Engineering Company of Florida, a subcontractor of the G.H. Johnson Construction Company, sued Insurance Company of North America (INA), in INA’s capacity as surety on Johnson’s construction payment bond, claiming that INA was liable to Acousti by reason of Johnson’s failure to remit full payment pursuant to the parties’ construction contract. INA moved to compel the matter to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the parties’ contract and the trial court granted the motion, thus abating the pending civil suit. The arbitrators subsequently entered an award in favor of Acousti. Acousti then filed with the trial court a motion to dissolve abatement of the civil action as well as a motion for an award' of attorney’s fees. After conducting a hearing on Acousti’s motion, the trial court entered an order awarding Acousti attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 627.756 and 627.428 of the Insurance Code. See §§ 627.756, 627.-428, Fla.Stat. (1987).
On appeal INA contends that it was error for the trial court to enter the award of attorney’s fees because the Florida Arbitration Code does not authorize the recovery of attorney’s fees. This contention is devoid of merit because attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to section 627.756 are not barred merely because the amount due the insured was established pursuant to arbitration rather than through a judicial determination. Zac Smith & Company, Inc. v. Moonspinner Condominium Association, Inc., 534 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also Leaf v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 544 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Fitzgerald & Company, Inc. v. Roberts Electrical Contractors, Inc., 533 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fewox v. McMERIT Constr. Co., 556 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…District Court of Appeal in Zac Smith & Co., Fitzgerald & Co. and B & H Construction Co., and by the Third District Court of Appeal in Consolidated Labor Union Trust. But see Insurance Company of North America v. Acousti Engineering Co. of Florida, 549 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (wherein the Fifth District Court of Appeal follows the holding in Zac Smith & Co.) In addition, the First, Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal, to the extent they have not implicitly receded from or overruled their own de…
-
Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Acousti Eng'g Co. OF Fla., 579 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1991)…PER CURIAM. We have for review three consolidated cases, Insurance Co. of North America v. Acousti Engineering Co., 549 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Fewox v. McMerit Construction Co., 556 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Park Shore Development Co. v. Higley South, Inc., 556 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), all of which present the issue of whether a subcontractor or owner who pr…
-
Pierce v. J.W. Charles-Bush Sec., Inc., 603 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…t their substantive rights and duties to arbitration, but not to send a question about the monetary cost of presenting that claim to the arbitrators. . The three consolidated cases were Insurance Company of North America v. Acousti Engineering Co., 549 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Fewox v. McMerit Construction Co., 556 So. 2d 419 (Fla.2d DCA1989); and Park Shore Development Co. v. Higley South, Inc., 556 So. 2d 439 (Fla.2d DCA1990).…
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
- ZAC Smith & Co., Inc. v. Moonspinner Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 534 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Leaf v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 544 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Fitzgerald & Co., Inc. v. Roberts Elec. Contractors, Inc., 533 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)