ROBERT B. SMITH, M.D., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
HARRIET R. SITOMER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision regarding whether the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund or Dr. Smith's liability insurance should pay attorney's fees awarded to a prevailing plaintiff in a medical malpractice case. The court held that statutory attorney's fees are not taxable costs under an insurance policy unless the authorizing statute explicitly specifies them as such.
The court held that attorneys' fees recoverable by statute are regarded as 'costs' only when the statute authorizing their recovery specifically designates them as such. Since section 768.56 does not specify that attorney's fees can be taxed as costs, they are not covered as taxable costs under the insurance policy provision.
[1] Attorneys' fees recoverable by statute are considered "costs" only when the authorizing statute specifies they are to be taxed as costs.
[2] A statute that does not specify that attorneys' fees are taxable as costs does not render such fees as part of the taxable costs covered by a liability insurance policy.
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“attorneys' fees recoverable by statute are regarded as 'costs' only when specified as such by the statute which authorizes their recovery.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that statutory attorney's fees are treated as costs only if the authorizing statute expressly designates them as such
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarriet Sitomer obtained a $1,250,000 judgment against Dr. Robert Smith in a medical malpractice action and became entitled to an award of attorney's …
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 Statutory Authorization For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Justice.
We have for review Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Sitomer, 524 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). We accepted jurisdiction based on conflict with State ex rel. Royal Insurance Co. v. Barrs, 87 Fla. 168, 99 So. 668 (1924), and Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Lamm, 218 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1969). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. In light of our recent decision in Spiegel v. Williams, 545 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1989), we quash the opinion below.
Respondent, Sitomer, obtained a judgment for $1,250,000 in a medical malpractice action. As the prevailing party, she became entitled to an award of attorney s fees under section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1981). A dispute arose with respect to whether Sitomer’s attorney’s fees should be paid by Dr. Smith or the Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund. In passing on this issue, the Fourth District Court of Appeal referred to the rule of Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Bouchoc, 514 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1987), that the Fund shall be liable for prevailing party attorney’s fees that are part of the plaintiff’s claims against a health care provider which exceed $100,000, except to the extent that the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees are payable under the provisions of the health care provider’s liability coverage. The court then focused upon Dr. Smith's liability insurance policy which stated:
The Staff Fund will pay, in addition to the applicable limits of liability: (a) all expenses incurred by the Staff Fund, all costs taxed against the Member in any suit defended by the Staff fund and all interest on the entire amount of any judgment....
Relying upon the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Williams v. Spiegel, 512 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), the court held that the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees were part of the taxable costs covered by Dr. Smith’s policy. Sitomer, 524 So. 2d at 676. As noted, this Court has since quashed the opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal in Williams, 545 So. 2d at 1360.
In Williams, this-Court relied upon Barrs and Lamm for the proposition that “attorneys’ fees recoverable by statute are regarded as ‘costs’ only when specified as such by the statute which authorizes their recovery.” Williams, 545 So. 2d at 1362. We held that section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1981), did not specify that attorney’s fees could be taxed as costs. Id. Therefore, the policy provision in the instant case cannot be construed to include prevailing party attorney’s fees as taxable costs covered by the policy.*
Accordingly, we quash the opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur. *
By separating taxable costs from the obligation to pay judgment interest, the policy language in this case is not even susceptible to the argument for ambiguity advanced by Chief Justice Ehrlich in his dissent in Spiegel v. Williams, 545 So. 2d 1360, 1362 (Fla.1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Moxley, 557 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1990)…tute are regarded as costs only when specified as such by the statute which authorizes their recovery and that section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1981), did not specify that attorney’s fees could be taxed as costs. More recently, in Smith v. Sitomer, 550 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla.1989), we construed a liability policy which provided for the payment of “ ‘all costs taxed against the Member in any suit defended by the Staff Fund’ ” as not covering attorney’s fees assessed under section 768.56. It is evident that sect…
-
Max W. Wilson, M.D. v. Wasser, 562 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1990)…ave for review Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Wasser, 545 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Having accepted review of Florida Patient’s Compensation [*340] Fund v. Sitomer, 524 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), quashed sub nom. Smith v. Sitomer, 550 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1989), which conflicted with other district court decisions, we accepted review of this case also.1 The question presented here, as in Sitomer, is whether the Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund (the Fund) or the medical doctor’s (Wilson’s) pri…1 / 2
-
Teichner & Mella, P.A. v. Patrice Butler, 600 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ordingly, harmless under the two-issue rule. See Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1978); Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Sitomer, 524 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA1988), quashed on other grounds sub nom., Smith v. Sitomer, 550 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1989). Third, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial based on two alleged evidentiary errors. The first of these claimed evidentiary errors was, according to the defendants, highly prejudicia…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Royal Ins. Co. v. Burton Barrs, 87 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1924)
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Sitomer, 524 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Bouchoc, 514 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1987)
- Edmor Props., Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 225 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1969)
- Vanzant v. Davies, 225 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1969)
- Roger Marrero, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 545 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1989)
- The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Lamm, 218 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Bud Pratt Williams v. Firth S. Spiegel, M.D., 512 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)