ALEXANDER YOUNG, APPELLANT,
v.
GANASE DHARAMDASS, BOCA RATON PAINT CO., AND AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
Alexander Young appeals an award of attorney's fees to his insurance carrier, Amerisure, under section 57.105. The court reverses, holding that Young's joinder of the tortfeasor and underinsured motorist carrier was not frivolous and that the arbitration clause in his policy was permissive rather than mandatory.
The court held that Young's suit was not frivolous. Section 627.727(6) does not mandate that joinder of the tortfeasor and underinsured motorist carrier can only occur by adhering to specific statutory requirements, and the statute does not contain language limiting how such parties may be joined. Additionally, the arbitration clause in Young's policy with Amerisure was permissive, not mandatory, allowing either party to seek arbitration but not requiring it.
[1] A court may award attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, only when there is a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact, meaning the action…
[2] A statute providing a mechanism for joining a tortfeasor and an underinsured motorist carrier does not necessarily preclude other methods of joinder.
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“Such fees will only be awarded where the court finds that the action is frivolous and 'so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.'”
Establishes the stringent standard required for awarding attorney's fees under section 57.105
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoung was injured in an automobile accident and sued both the tortfeasor and his underinsured motorist carrier, Amerisure, alleging the tortfeasor's l…
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 Under Section 57.105 cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Alexander Young, appeals from a final order granting Amerisure Insurance Company’s motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1995). We reverse.
As a result of an automobile accident, Appellant brought suit against the tortfeasor as well as Amerisure, his underinsured motorist carrier. Appellant’s amended complaint alleged that the tortfeasor’s liability insurance was insufficient to cover the total damages sustained by Appellant and that the tortfea- sor had failed to offer to settle the claim. The trial court denied Amerisure’s motion to dismiss. Subsequently, Appellant dismissed Amerisure from his suit. Amerisure then sought its attorney’s fees under section 57.105.
Section 57.105 authorizes an attorney’s fees award to the prevailing party in any civil action in which the court finds that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint. Such fees will only be awarded where the court finds that the action is frivolous and “so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.” Allen v. Estate of Dutton, 384 So. 2d 171, 175 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1980).
In the instant case, Amerisure argues entitlement to section 57.105 fees because Appellant failed to meet the requirements of section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991), for joining an underinsured motorist carrier in a suit against the tortfeasor. In the alternative, Amerisure claims that such fees are warranted because Appellant was required to arbitrate any claims against it. Both arguments must fail.
Section 627.727(6) does not mandate that joinder of the tortfeasor and underin-sured motorist carrier can only occur by adhering to the requirements as set forth in that section. Amerisure does not cite to, nor have we been able to find, any cases interpreting this section as providing the only method by which a tortfeasor may be joined with an underinsured motorist carrier in the same action. Rather, the purpose of this statute is simply to provide a mechanism whereby injured people may settle their claim for the tortfeasor policy limits, yet not jeopardize their rights against their underin-sured motorist carrier. Fladell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 544 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Since the statute does not contain any language limiting how such parties may be joined, we cannot say that Appellant’s suit was so clearly devoid of merit as to warrant an award of fees under section 57.105.
Additionally, the arbitration clause in Appellant’s policy with Amerisure is permissive, not mandatory.1 It provides that either party may seek to arbitrate any dispute. It does not require that all claims be resolved through arbitration.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees under section 57.105.
REVERSED.
POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur. . The arbitration clause in Appellant's policy with Amerisure provides, inter alia:
A. If we and an "insured” do not agree:
1. Whether that person is legally entitled to recover damages under this Part; or
2. As to the amount of damages; either party may make a written demand for arbitration.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lamz v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 803 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2001)…concurs. . Section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes, was substantially changed in 1992 and no longer provides the authority for joinder of the uninsured/underinsured carrier in the same action with the tortfeasor. See, e.g., Young v. Ganese Dharamdass, 695 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). . We recognize that Geico was not made a party in this case pursuant to section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1991); however, the parties agree that Geico was properly named as a defendant. Therefore, Geico's status as a proper…
-
Conax Fla. Corp. v. Astrium Ltd., 499 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (M.D. Fla. 2007)…umption in favor of arbitrability does not apply. Similarly, the Florida case cited by the plaintiff that involves an arbitration clause contains no analysis and lacks acknowledgment of the policy favoring arbitration. See Young v. Dharamdass, 695 So.2d 828 (Fla.App.1997).…
Authorities Cited
- Carola D. Allen v. Est. of Ellen C. Dutton, 384 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Fladell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 544 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)