MICHAEL SHIRTCLIFFE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE, ETC., APPELLEE
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 court held that the insurer's concession on uninsured motorist stacking benefits constituted a confession of judgment, entitling the insured to attorney's fees.
A dispute arose over whether the insured was entitled to stacking coverage under his parents' uninsured motorist policy, which depended on his status …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
The sole issue on appeal is whether Appellant was entitled to recover statutory attorney’s fees in connection with the declaratory judgment action he filed regarding uninsured motorist coverage. Because we conclude that Appellee initially disputed Appellant’s entitlement to “stacking” uninsured motorist benefits and that its later concession on that issue was tantamount to a confession of judgment, we reverse and remand this cause with instructions for the trial judge to award to Appellant his reasonable fees in an amount to be determined by the trial judge.
A dispute arose between the parties regarding whether Appellant was entitled to stacking coverage under the uninsured motorist component of his parents’ policy. *556The resolution of that dispute turned on whether Appellant was a resident relative under the policy. If he was, he was entitled to stacking coverage in the amount of $800,000. If not, he was only entitled to $100,000. His damages and the liability of the uninsured driver were not disputed. Before suit was filed, Appellee tendered a check to Appellant for $100,000, in full settlement of his claim. After suit was filed, and after Appellee conducted an examination under oath of Appellant, Appel-lee tendered the additional $200,000.
Based upon the issues raised in the pleadings and status of the record before the trial court, we conclude on de novo review that Appellant was entitled to file a declaratory judgment action and that the payment of the stacking benefit constituted a confession of judgment. Accordingly, Appellant was entitled to fees. Jerkins v. USF & G Specialty Ins. Co., 982 So.2d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORPY, C.J, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Haim Turgman v. Boca Woods Country Club Ass'n, Inc., 198 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…nal Judgment.” When his request to reduce -the judgment was denied,-this appeal followed. ■■ Any issue concerning the propriety of awarding judgment for the $25,000 initiation fee has been waived on appeal. See Shirtcliffe v. State Farm Mut. Auto., 160 So. 3d 555, 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (holding that where the “Appellee initially disputed Appellant’s entitlement to ‘stacking’ uninsured motorist benefits” and then “later conce[ded] on that issue,” the concession “was tantamount to a confession of judgment”).…
-
Explorer Ins. Co. v. Renold Cajusma, 178 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…rkins v. USF & G Specialty Ins. Co., 982 So. 2d 15, 17 (Fla. 6th. DCA 2008). Tampa Chiropractic Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 141 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)(footnote omitted); see also Shirtcliffe v. State Farm Mut. Auta, 160 So. 3d 555, 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Jerkins, 982 So. 2d at 17. We explained the confession of judgment doctrine as follows: The confession of judgment doctrine turns on the, policy underlying section 627.428: discouraging insurers from .contesting valid clai…
-
Geico Cas. Co. v. Open Magnetic Scanning of Boca-Delray (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)…2012) (“[W]e review a pure question of law de novo.”); Jerkins v. USF & G Specialty Ins. Co., 982 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“We review the trial court’s interpretation of a statute de novo.”); see also Shirtcliffe v. State Farm Mut. Auto., 160 So. 3d 555, 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“[W]e conclude on de novo review that Appellant was entitled to file a declaratory judgment action and that the payment of the stacking benefit constituted a confession of judgment. Accordingly, Appellant was entitled to f…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jerkins v. USF & G Specialty Ins. Co., 982 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)