A. CARLO GUADAGNO, D.C., P.A., D/B/A WEST KENDALL CHIROPRACTIC CENTER (A/A/O INES PATINO), PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT

Fla. 3d DCA | 2011-10-19
No. 3D11-1419
Before SHEPHERD and EMAS, JJ„ and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
88 So. 3d 246 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2011) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Topics
Appellate Attorney'S Fees Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law Writ Of Certiorari

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
EMAS, J.

EMAS, J.

Upon review of the petition and the response, this Court grants the petition for writ of certiorari and quashes the circuit court’s order denying West Kendall Chiropractic Center’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees. Respondent concedes, and we agree, that the circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, should have awarded petitioner appellate attorney’s fees, pursuant to section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (1982), conditioned upon petitioner prevailing in the underlying proceedings. The failure to do so was a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Ramirez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 67 So.3d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Comprehensive Health Center, LLC v. United Auto. Ins. Co., — So.3d —, 2011 WL 2848667 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Allstate Insurance Company v. De La Fe, 647 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

The order denying motion for appellate attorney’s fees is quashed and this cause is remanded to the circuit court for entry of an order conditionally granting petitioner’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees.

Petition granted.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Mercury Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. RPM Med. Ctr., 89 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
    …properly concedes that the award of appellate attorney’s fees, pursuant to section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes, should have been conditioned upon respondent ultimately prevailing in the underlying proceeding. See Guadagno v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 88 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Ramirez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 67 So. 3d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Comprehensive Health Ctr., LLC v. United Auto. Ins. Co., — So. 3d -, 2011 WL 2848667 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also Tench v. Am. Reliance Ins. Co., 671 So. 2d 801…
  • Hialeah Med. Assocs., Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 151 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
    …was entitled to appellate attorney fees below as the prevailing party, pursuant to section 627.428(1) of the Florida Statutes and clear case law from this district requiring the same, see, e.g. A. Carlo Guadagno, D.C., P.A. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 88 So. 3d 246, 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (finding, on petition for certiorari, a departure from the essential requirements of law for the failure to conditionally award attorney fees under section 627.428(1) to the prevailing party), we grant certiorari, quash the p…
  • Virtual Imaging Servs., Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 175 So. 3d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
    …Imaging has not yet obtained a judgment for PIP benefits, we condition the appellate attorney’s fee award upon Virtual Imaging prevailing in the underlying action by obtaining a judgment for PIP benefits. See A. Carlo Guadagno, D.C. v. United Auto., 88 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the decision of the circuit court appellate division denying Virtual Imaging’s motion for an award of entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees. We further remand…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw