PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A/A/O JAVIER MOISES VILLEGAS, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT
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.
Professional Medical Group, Inc., assigned the insurance interests of an insured, sought personal injury protection benefits from United Automobile Insurance Company. After the appellate division reversed a dismissal but denied attorney's fees, the Florida District Court of Appeal granted certiorari and held that attorney's fees must be awarded as a matter of law when an insured prevails in a dispute with an insurer.
The court held that attorney's fees must be awarded as a matter of mandatory statutory requirement when an insured or beneficiary prevails in an appeal against an insurer. The appellate division erred in denying attorney's fees merely because other issues were outstanding, as fees should be awarded conditioned upon the insured ultimately prevailing with a recovery on the policy.
[1] Certiorari jurisdiction exists to review a final order of a circuit court acting in its appellate capacity.
[2] A court departs from the essential requirements of law when it fails to award statutorily mandated attorney's fees to a prevailing party.
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“for "an appeal in which the insured or beneficiary prevails, the appellate court shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured or beneficiary a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured's or beneficiary's attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had."”
Establishes the mandatory statutory requirement for attorney's fees when an insured prevails against an insurer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceProfessional Medical Group provided medical care to Javier Moisés Villegas and was assigned his insurance policy interests. The group sought personal …
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 Certiorari Review Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
Professional Medical Group, Inc., petitions this Court for Writ of Certiorari concerning an order of the appellate division of the circuit court granting its motion to dismiss but denying an award of attorney’s fees from the respondent, United Automobile Insurance ' Company. This Court finds that certiorari jurisdiction exists under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(B) and grants review of the circuit court’s final order denying attorney’s fees.
Professional Medical Group provided care to Javier Moisés Villegas and was assigned the interest of his insurance policy. Professional Medical Group sought personal injury protection benefits from United Automobile. After failed preliminary attempts to obtain a copy of the United Automobile’s Personal Injury Protection (PIP) log, pursuant to section 627.736(6)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), Professional Medical Group filed a complaint for declaratory relief. United Automobile moved to dismiss and the trial court granted the motion.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision. While the Eleventh Circuit agreed that Florida law provides for a mandatory award of attorney’s fees to the insured in any dispute which leads to judgment against the insurer, it ultimately denied Professional Medical Group’s motion for attorney’s fees. Professional Medical Group filed a motion for rehearing which the circuit court denied. This Petition for Writ of Certiorari follows.
First, we have jurisdiction to review the Eleventh Circuit’s order. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(B), the district courts of appeal may review any final order of circuit courts acting in their review capacity. Because this Petition for Writ of Certiorari concerns a final order of the Eleventh Circuit Court’s Appellate Division, certiorari jurisdiction is thus met. The standard of review for such a review is narrow. See Brunsman v. Nat’l Rent-A-Fence Co., 612 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Therefore, we are limited to determining “whether the circuit court denied the petitioner procedural due process or departed from the essential requirements of law to cause a miscarriage of justice.” Stambaugh v. State, 891 So. 2d 1136, 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
We conclude that the Eleventh Circuit departed from the essential requirements of the law in its final order. Professional Medical Group correctly points out that for “an appeal hi which the insured or beneficiary prevails, the appellate court shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured or beneficiary a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured’s or beneficiary’s attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had.” § 627.428(1), Fla. Stat. (2006); See Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679, 684 (Fla.2000). However, the Eleventh Circuit failed to award attorney’s fees to Professional Medical Group explaining only that “other issues still outstanding in this case preclude the award of the attorneys fees.” As such, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision departs from the mandatory requirement of the statute, and fails to support its finding with any corroborative authority. Fees should have been awarded conditioned upon the insured ultimately prevailing with a recovery on the policy. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. De La Fe, 647 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramirez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 67 So. 3d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…n & Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., — So. 3d —, 2011 WL 1775816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (same); Hollywood Injury Rehab Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (same); Prof'l Med. Grp., Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 967 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (same). But see Highwoods DLF EOLA, LLC v. Condo Developer, LLC, 51 So. 3d 570, 573 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (indicating that appeal may be appropriate to review initial decision of appellate court on collateral issue). The insur…
-
Hollywood Injury Rehab Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…ntitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 627.428. By failing to grant the motion, the circuit court appellate division departed from the essential requirements of the law. Id. at 322; Prof’l Med. Group, Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 967 So. 2d 243, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the order below, and remand with directions to grant Hollywood Center’s motion for attorney’s fees. . We find that certiorari jurisdiction exists under Florida Rule of Appellate…
-
Comprehensive Health Ctr., LLC v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 99 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…e’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. See, e.g., Hollywood Injury Rehab Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Prof'l Med. Grp., Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 967 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Arango v. United Auto. Ins. [*527] Co., 901 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the decision denying appellate attorney’s fees and remand with directions to grant Comprehensive’s motion for ap…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Farren Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)
- LEE v. State, 891 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. DE LA FE, 647 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Keels v. State, 891 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Brunsman v. Nat'l Rent-A-Fence Co., 612 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)