OUT OF SIGHT LOUNGE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHERN AMERICAN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AN INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Out of Sight Lounge sued its fire insurance company to recover for a fire loss after the insurer denied the claim, alleging the insured had set the fire. The jury verdict favored the plaintiff, but the trial court denied attorney fees, reasoning the insurer's denial was based on a reasonable hypothesis. The appellate court reversed, holding that attorney fees are mandatory under Florida statute regardless of whether the insurer's defense was reasonable.
The trial court erred in denying attorney fees to the plaintiff. Under § 627.0127, attorney fees are mandatory upon rendition of a judgment against an insurer in favor of the insured, regardless of whether the insurer chose to contest the matter on a reasonable basis.
[1] A statute conferring attorney fees upon an insured who recovers a judgment against an insurer applies regardless of whether the insurer's disclaimer of liability was base…
[2] A trial court errs in denying an insured's application for attorney fees when the insured obtains a judgment against the insurer.
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 the applicable statute the right to attorney's fees in such case is conferred regardless of whether the insurer chose to contest the matter on some basis which it was not unreasonable to assert.”
Establishes that statutory attorney fee entitlement does not depend on the reasonableness of the insurer's defense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOut of Sight Lounge, Inc. suffered a fire loss and filed a claim with Southern American Fire Insurance Company. The insurer rejected the claim, conten…
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 Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant sued the appellee insurer to recover for a fire loss. The action followed a rejection of the claim by the insurer because of the latter’s contention that the fire which caused the loss was set by or at the direction of the insured. On trial of the cause, in the course of which the insurer presented an issue based on that contention a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff-appellant against the insurer for $13,750. Judgment was entered thereon, and the plaintiff appealed, assigning as error the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s application for an allowance for its attorney fees. In so ruling the trial *271court accepted the argument of the insured that attorney fees were not allowable in this case, under § 627.0127, Fla.Stat., F.S. A., because the disclaimer of liability by the insured had been made on a reasonable ground or hypothesis.1 We hold that ruling was error, and reverse.
Under the applicable statute the right to attorney’s fees in such case is conferred regardless of whether the insurer chose to contest the matter on some basis which it was not unreasonable to assert. See Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp. v. Royals Farm Sup., Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 317, 320-321; James Furniture Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 722, 723.
The insurer filed a cross-appeal to the judgment, claiming error of the trial court in striking its defense that the plaintiff had no insurable interest. That action was taken by the court during the course of the trial based on evidence which had been submitted therein. On consideration of the record and arguments we find no error in that ruling. We also reject as unsound in the light of the record and briefs the further contentions of the defendant on cross-appeal directed to certain rulings relating to the admission or exclusion of evidence made by the trial court during the course of the trial.
Accordingly, the ruling of the trial court denying an allowance of attorney fees to the plaintiff, which was the basis of the main appeal, is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings thereon in accordance with the cited statute relating to such fees; otherwise the judgment of the trial court in this cause is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Emp'rs' Liab. Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Royals Farm Supply, Inc., 186 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- James Furniture Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Md. Cas. Co., 114 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)