STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
PRO HEALTH PAIN RELIEF CENTER, INC., ETC., 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 quashed an unconditional award of appellate attorney's fees under section 627.428(1), holding that such fees must be conditioned upon the prevailing party ultimately succeeding in the underlying proceeding.
Appellate attorney's fees under section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes, must be conditioned upon the party ultimately prevailing in the underlying proceeding, not awarded unconditionally.
[1] Appellate attorney's fees awarded under section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes, must be conditioned upon the party ultimately prevailing in the underlying proceeding rather…
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 intelligence“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.”
The court stated the controlling legal principle that respondent conceded and the court agreed upon.
State Farm sought certiorari review of an order by the Eleventh Judicial Circuit's appellate division that unconditionally granted Pro Health Pain Rel…
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 Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
' State Fárm Automobile Insurance Company petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Miami-Dade County, sitting in its appellate capacity, unconditionally granting respondent’s, Pro Health Pain Relief Center, Inc. a/a/o Arturo Perez, motion for appellate attorney’s fees. Respondent concedes below, and we agree, 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.” Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla. v. RPM Medical Ctr., 89 So.3d 261, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing Guadagno v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 88 So.3d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)) (other *713citations' omitted). In Guadagno, this Court held, “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” and “[t]he failure to do so was a departure from the essential requirements of law.” Guadagno at 247.
We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the circuit court appellate division’s order unconditionally granting respondent’s appellate attorney’s fees. We further remand to the appellate division for entry of an order conditionally awarding appellate attorney’s fees to respondent upon its prevailing in the underlying proceedings. ■
Petition granted, order 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)
- Mercury Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. RPM Med. Ctr., 89 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)