HOLLYWOOD INJURY REHAB CENTER, ETC., 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.
The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying attorney's fees to the prevailing party in an action against its insurer.
Petitioner sued its insurer for PIP benefits and prevailed. The insurer appealed the trial court's summary judgment, which was affirmed. Petitioner th…
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 PIP cases and more on FLexlaw
LAGOA, J.
Petitioner, Hollywood Injury Rehab Center (“Hollywood Center”), seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order of the circuit court appellate division denying its motion for attorney’s fees.1 Because we find that the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity departed from the essential requirements of the law, we grant the petition and quash the order below.
Hollywood Center filed suit against the respondent, United Automobile Insurance Company (“United Auto”), for recovery of personal injury protection benefits. The county court entered summary judgment in Hollywood Center’s favor, and United Auto appealed. The circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity affirmed the trial court’s order. As the prevailing party, Hollywood Center, pursuant to section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2007), filed a motion for attorney’s fees. The circuit court appellate division, however, denied Hollywood Center’s motion for fees and this petition followed.
United Auto properly concedes that attorney’s fees should have been awarded to Hollywood Center as the prevailing party. “Section 627.428 mandates that an insured be awarded attorneys’ fees when he is the prevailing party on appeal in an action against his insurer.” Arango v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 901 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). It is undisputed that Hollywood Center was the prevailing party on appeal in an action against its insurer. As such, Hollywood Center is entitled 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 Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(B).
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)…t court appellate division denial of appellate section 627.428 attorney’s fees); S. Fla. Pain & 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…
-
Comprehensive Health Ctr., LLC v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 99 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ans’ expert witness fees). We, therefore, hold that the failure to grant Comprehensive’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 appella…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Arango v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 901 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Prof'l Med. Grp., Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 967 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)