GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ALYSIA M. MACEDO AND ZACKERY R. LOMBARDO, APPELLEES
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.
GEICO appeals a judgment requiring it to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs after rejecting a $50,000 settlement offer and a jury returned a verdict for over four times that amount. The court affirmed, holding that under GEICO's insurance policy giving it sole control over litigation decisions, the costs incurred by the opposing party when GEICO chooses to litigate are "other reasonable expenses incurred at our request" and thus covered by the policy.
The court held that GEICO's policy provision requiring payment of "other reasonable expenses incurred at our request" includes attorneys' fees and costs awarded to the opposing party under the offer of judgment statute when GEICO exercises its contractual right to litigate instead of settle. Because GEICO possessed sole control over the decision to litigate, that decision constitutes a "request" to incur such costs.
[1] An insurer that has the sole right to settle or litigate claims against its insured is liable for the opposing party's litigation costs and attorney's fees when the insur…
[2] An insurance policy provision obligating the insurer to pay for "all investigative and legal costs incurred by us" and "all reasonable costs incurred by an insured at our…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Under insurance policies such as the one here, insurers enjoy the sole right to settle or litigate claims against their insureds; therefore, choosing to litigate is no different than a request ... to do so. Any such expression, or request, necessarily encompasses incurring litigation costs, which may mean not only the insurer's litigation costs, but also those incurred by the opposing party should that party prevail.”
Establishes the core holding that an insurer's election to litigate constitutes a request to incur litigation costs, including those of the prevailing opposing party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGEICO, as the insurer for defendant Zackery R. Lombardo, rejected a $50,000 settlement proposal made by plaintiff Alysia M. Macedo under section 768.7…
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 Offer Of Judgment Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
The Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) challenges the final judgment in an automobile insurance case holding it liable to pay Alysia M. Macedo’s attorneys fees and costs after GEICO had rejected, on behalf of its insured Zackery R. Lombardo, a $50,000 settlement proposal made by Ms. Macedo pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes.' A jury returned a verdict in Ms, Macedo’s favor, awarding more than four times the amount of the proposal. Ms. Macedo then joined GEICO to the judgment, see § 627.4186(4), Fla. Stat., and sought taxable fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79, which the trial court awarded against GEICO jointly and severally with its insured.
We now affirm the trial court’s judgment based on our prior decision in New Hampshire Indemnity Company v. Gray, 177 So.3d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). In Gray, this Court, found that the insurer’s policy provision stating that it would cover “other reasonable expenses incurred at our request” included costs associated. with choosing to litigate a case instead of settling it., Id. at 63-64. See also Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hollingsworth, 157 So.3d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (finding that the trial court permissibly, taxed attorneys’ fees against GEICO based on its policy provision requiring it to pay legal costs);. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Johnson, 654 So.2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (construing similar policy-language to require -the insurer to cover its insured’s litigation costs). As in Gray, GEICO’s policy, with Mr. Lombardo gave it the sole right to litigate and settle claims, and contractually obligated it to pay for “all investigative and legal costs incurred by us” and “all reasonable costs incurred by an insured at our request.” The policy didn’t provide a definition of legal or other costs, nor exclude, for example, costs- and fees awarded to a plaintiff driver pursuant to the offer of judgment statute. We recognized in Gray that:
[Ujnder insurance policies such as the one here, insurers enjoy the sole right to settle or litigate claims against their in*1157sureds; therefore, choosing to litigate is no different than a request ... to do so. Any such expression, or request, necessarily encompasses .incurring litigation costs, which may mean not only 'the insurer’s litigation costs, but also those incurred by the opposing party should that party prevail. It is the insurer’s choice to litigate — a. decision only it can make — -that results in these costs being incurred; thus, “those expenses [are] incurred at the insurer’s request.”
Gray, 177 So.3d at 63 (quoting Johnson, 654 So.2d at 240).
On this basis, we affirm the trial court’s final judgment adjudicating GEICO jointly and severally ‘liable with its insured- for Ms. Macedo’s taxable-fees and costs. As in Gray, we also certify conflict with Steele v. Kinsey, 801 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
WETHERELL, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Alysia M. MacEdo, 228 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 2017)…POLSTON, J. Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) seeks review of the decision of the First Distinct Court of Appeal in Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Macedo, 190 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).1 As explained below, we approve the First District’s decision and hold that the ambiguous Additional Payments section of the insurance policy must be construed in favor of coverage for the costs and attorneys’ fees awarded again…
-
Sec. Nat'l INS. Co. v. Gonzalez (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…the sole right to litigate and settle claims, and contractually obligated it to pay for "all investigative and legal costs incurred by us" and "all reasonable costs incurred by an insured at our request." [citing Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Macedo, 190 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)] (quoting the Additional Payments - 9 - section of the policy). The First District reasoned that "[a]ny such expression, or request [to litigate rather than settle], necessarily encompasses incurring litigation costs, which may…
-
Reyes v. Gonzalez (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Steele v. Kinsey, 801 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Johnson, 654 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hollingsworth, 157 So. 3d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Dionny Pimentel v. Colamarco, 177 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- NEW Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Gray, 177 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)