VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC., 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.
Florida appellate court granted certiorari and conditionally awarded appellate attorney's fees to Virtual Imaging under section 627.428 and Rule 9.400, conditioned on Virtual Imaging ultimately prevailing in obtaining a judgment for PIP benefits in the underlying action.
Appellate attorney's fees are conditionally awarded to the prevailing party in the appellate division, conditioned upon that party ultimately obtaining a judgment for PIP benefits in the underlying action.
[1] Appellate attorney's fees under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400 and section 627.428 are conditionally awarded to a party prevailing in the appellate division, c…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVirtual Imaging Services, Inc. prevailed in the circuit court's appellate division against United Automobile Insurance Company in a PIP benefits dispu…
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 Motion For Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., etc., petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the appellate division of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court’s denial of Virtual Imaging’s motion for an award of entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400 and sections 627.428 and 627.736(8), Florida Statutes (2014). United Automobile Insurance Company concedes that appellate attorney’s fees should have been awarded because Virtual Imaging prevailed in the circuit court’s appellate division. However, because Virtual 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 to the appellate division for entry of an order conditionally granting Virtual Imaging’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees.
Petition granted, decision quashed, and case remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- A. Carlo Guadagno, D.C., P.A. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 88 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)