STEVEN ALBRITTON AND WANDA ALBRITTON
v.
STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY

Fla. 3d DCA | 2021-06-09
No. 20-1088
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2021)

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.


Holding

An insured is not entitled to attorney's fees under § 627.428 when the suit is filed prematurely before the insured has complied with the insurance contract's appraisal clause.


Headnotes

[1] An insured is entitled to attorney's fees under section 627.428, Florida Statutes, only when it was reasonably necessary to file a court action to resolve the dispute.

[2] A lawsuit filed before the insured complies with an appraisal clause is premature and does not justify an award of attorney's fees.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“In order to be entitled to attorney's fees [under section 627.428, Florida Statutes], it must have been reasonably necessary for the insured to file a court action.”

Travelers of Fla. v. Stormont, cited approvingly by the court for the standard governing attorney's fees claims.

Facts & Procedural History

The Albrittons filed suit against State Farm over an insurance claim dispute. State Farm had demanded appraisal, which is a contractual dispute resolu…

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.


Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 627.428, Fla. Stat. (2018). See also Travelers of Fla.

v. Stormont, 43 So. 3d 941, 944-45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (noting: “In order to be entitled to attorney’s fees [under section 627.428, Florida Statutes], it must have been reasonably necessary for the insured to file a court action” and further concluding, under similar facts: “The suit was premature. Once the insurer demanded appraisal, the insured was required to comply with the appraisal clause. Proceeding to court was not justified.”); Goldman v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 244 So. 3d 310, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer where trial court found the insured’s suit was “merely a preemptive lawsuit intended to obtain attorneys’ fees for the usual efforts in negotiating an insurance claim”) (citation omitted); State

Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lime Bay Condo, Inc., 187 So. 3d 932, 935 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2016) (holding that “when the insured moves for attorney’s fees [under section 627.428], the underlying issue is whether the suit was filed for a legitimate purpose, and whether the filing acted as a necessary catalyst to resolve the dispute and force the insurer to satisfy its obligations under the insurance contract”); Beverly v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 50 So. 3d 628, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding an insured is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under section 627.428 where the insurer “wrongfully caus[ed] its insured to resort to litigation in order to resolve a conflict with its insurer when it was within the company’s power to resolve it”) (citation omitted); Hill v. State Farm

Fla. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 956, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (observing: “It is only when the claims adjusting process breaks down and the parties are no longer working to resolve the claim within the contract, but are actually taking steps that breach the contract, that the insured may be entitled to an award fees under section 627.428”).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw