GARY SANTORO
v.
ASANKA CARS.COM, INC. AND AMERICAN SAFETY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
A brief per curiam affirmance addressing attorney's fees recovery under Florida's insurance statute. The court affirmed the lower court's decision regarding when insured parties may recover attorney's fees in insurance disputes.
The court affirmed the lower court decision, establishing that attorney's fees are recoverable under section 627.428 when the claims adjusting process breaks down and the insurance carrier ceases to negotiate or breaches the contract, but not where the lawsuit is merely a preemptive effort to obtain fees for usual negotiation efforts.
[1] Attorneys' fees are recoverable under section 627.428, Florida Statutes, when the claims adjusting process breaks down and the parties are no longer working to resolve th…
[2] The purpose of awarding attorneys' fees under section 627.428, Florida Statutes, is to compensate insureds who file suit to resolve a legitimate dispute, not simply to co…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 reason for an award of attorneys' fees under the statute "is the notion that the insureds filed suit 'to resolve a legitimate dispute' and not simply to collect attorneys' fees"”
Establishes the fundamental purpose and limitation on attorney's fees awards under the statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not detail the underlying facts of the case, instead focusing on the legal principles governing attorney's fees awards in insurance d…
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 Confession Of Judgment Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
See Hill v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 956, 960, 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (dealing with section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2004), and stating that the reason for an award of attorneys' fees under the statute "is the notion that the insureds filed suit 'to resolve a legitimate dispute' and not simply to collect attorneys' fees" (quoting Lewis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 13 So. 3d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)); questioning whether the lawsuit "was merely a preemptive lawsuit intended to obtain attorneys' fees for the usual efforts in negotiating an insurance claim" and stating that "the fees should normally be limited to the work associated with filing the lawsuit after the insurance carrier has ceased to negotiate or has breached the contract and the additional legal work necessary and reasonable to resolve the breach of contract"); Goldman v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 244 So. 3d 310, 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (recognizing that attorney's fees are recoverable under section 627.428 "when the claims adjusting process breaks down and the parties are no longer working to resolve the claim within the contract, but are actually taking steps that breach the contract" (quoting Hill, 35 So. 3d at 960)); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 969 So. 2d 393, 397-98 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (stating that the confession of judgment "doctrine applies where the insurer has denied benefits the insured was entitled to, forcing the insured to file suit, resulting in the insurer's change of heart and payment before judgment" and that it does not apply "where the insureds were not forced to sue to receive benefits").
SILBERMAN, BLACK, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 969 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Hill v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)