ELDRED L. TUGGLE AND CATHERINE TUGGLE, HIS WIFE, PETITIONERS, CROSS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, CROSS-PETITIONER
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 Florida Supreme Court addressed whether attorney's fees for appellate services could be awarded in an insurance dispute. The Court held that a 1967 statute authorizing appellate attorney's fees was not retroactive and therefore could not apply to appellate proceedings initiated before its effective date.
Attorney's fees for appellate services cannot be awarded for proceedings instituted before the effective date of the 1967 statute that first authorized such fees, as the statute was not retroactive and no statutory basis existed for awarding appellate fees prior to that date.
“We do not agree with the contention of petitioners that, in awarding fees the trial court may include services in this case in either the District Court of Appeal or in this Court.”
Establishes that the Court rejected retroactive application of fee-shifting statute to appellate services
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTuggle and his wife sued Government Employees Insurance Company. The trial court initially denied attorney's fees. The District Court of Appeal affirm…
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 Insurance Cases cases and more on FLexlaw
On Petition and Cross-Petition
The first appearance of this case in the appellate courts was in the District Court of Appeal, Third District.1 There the court concluded its decision as follows:
“The denial by the trial court of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for services in this case was not error. There had been no demand by plaintiffs for arbitration or refusal thereof by the insurer. The decree as amended on rehearing preserved the rights of the parties for arbitration as called for in the policy.”
We granted certiorari and on review quashed the' decision of the District Court and remanded “for disposition in accord-anee with this opinion, with directions that attorney’s fees be awarded in accordance with petitioners’ contentions on this point.” 2 (e. s.)
“Petitioner’s contention” referred to in the foregoing excerpt from our decision, as gleaned from their brief on the merits, is set forth in their “Point II” as follows:
“The«Court erred in refusing to award the plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
The former certiorari proceedings were argued in this Court June 14, 1967, prior to the effective date of Chapter 67-400, Acts of 1967 (now 627.0127, F.S.A.), which provided for fees in the appellate as well as the trial court. It is therefore quite obvious that the reference in our decision in 207 So.2d 674, quoted above, pertained only to attorneys’ fees for services in the trial court.
We do not agree with the contention of petitioners that, in awarding fees the trial court may include services in this case in either the District Court of Appeal or in this Court. The 1967 amendment, supra, was not retroactive and there existed no statutory basis for award of fees for services performed in appellate proceedings instituted prior to its effective date.
That part of the decision of the district court here reviewed,3 awarding the Tug-gles $750 as compensation for services in that court, is accordingly quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, THOR-NAL AND CALDWELL (Retired), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Love v. Ira S. Jacobson, M.D., 390 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…or obtaining recovery. See generally, Allen v. Dutton, 384 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In our view, a new right has been created and the award of attorney’s fees is not retroactive under the statute. Tuggle v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 220 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1969); Stone v. Town of Mexico Beach, 348 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In light of our disposition of this cause, we need not consider the other issues presented on appeal. Reversed.…
-
Rudolph v. Unger, 417 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ection 701.04 of the Florida Statutes as amended in 1980.1 First, the statute creating the right to recover fees was adopted after the execution of the contract and does not have retroactive effect. Tuggle v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 220 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1969); McCord v. Smith, 43 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1950); Stone v. Town of Mexico Beach, 348 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Secondly, a partial release of certain lands encumbered by mortgage is not a satisfaction. The statute is in derogation of the c…
-
Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. Foote Bros. Corp., 458 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…e v. Jacobson, 390 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); and those which affect only the measure of damages for vindication of a substantive right, Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, supra. Appellee relies on Tuggle v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 220 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1969), to support its argument that the date appellant filed its initial complaint determines which version of the statute applies. The amendment considered in Tug-gle, however, was not a remedial measure affecting only the measure of damages.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eldred L. Tuggle and Catherine Tuggle v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1968)
- Eldred L. Tuggle and Catherine Tuggle v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 185 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Rainwater v. State, 208 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Eldred L. Tuggle and Catherine Tuggle v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 208 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)