METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
TRUDY HEAVER, 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.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company appeals an attorney fee award of $18,000 granted to the beneficiary Trudy Heaver in a life insurance policy dispute. The court affirmed the fee award, holding that Florida Statute § 627.0127(1) mandates reasonable attorney fees against an insurer when judgment is rendered in favor of a beneficiary.
Florida Statute § 627.0127(1) requires that when a judgment is rendered against an insurer in favor of a named beneficiary, the trial court must award a reasonable sum as attorney fees. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $18,000, as this amount fell within the range of expert testimony regarding reasonable fees.
[1] A trial court shall adjudge against an insurer and in favor of a beneficiary a reasonable sum as attorney fees for prosecuting a suit in which recovery is had.
[2] An award of attorney fees against an insurer is mandatory when a judgment is rendered in favor of a beneficiary.
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“Upon the rendition of a judgment or decree by any of the courts of this state against an insurer and in favor of an insured or the named beneficiary under a policy or contract executed by the insurer, the trial court * * * shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured or beneficiary a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured's or beneficiary's attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had.”
Statutory requirement for mandatory attorney fee awards against insurers when judgment is rendered in favor of a beneficiary
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStanislaw Knapowski obtained a $50,000 life insurance policy from Metropolitan Life with Trudy Heaver as beneficiary. When Knapowski attempted to chan…
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 Double Indemnity Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
Stanislaw Knapowski (the insured) took out a $50,000 life policy on his life issued by appellant (the insurer). Ap-pellee was a beneficiary under this policy. The insured tried to substitute his mother as beneficiary, but Metropolitan told him this was not advisable as his mother lived in Poland, and it would be difficult to get money to someone behind the Iron Curtain. The insured died in an auto accident, thereby invoking the double indemnity clause of his policy. The insured’s mother made an appearance through counsel hired by the Polish government, and the case went to trial to determine the proper beneficiary. The trial court found that appellee Heaver was the proper beneficiary and this court affirmed.1 At a later hearing the court heard testimony regarding plaintiff appel-lee’s legal entitlement to attorney fees, and awarded her $18,000. Metropolitan appeals this award.
Florida Statute § 627.0127(1), F.S.A., provides:
“Upon the rendition of a judgment or decree by any of the courts of this state against an insurer and in favor of an insured or the named beneficiary under a policy or contract executed by the insurer, the trial court * * * shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured or beneficiary a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured’s or beneficiary’s attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had.”
It is clear that the language of this statute requires attorney fees to be assessed against the insurance company in the instant case. The trial judge held an evidentiary hearing and heard the testimony of expert witnesses regarding the proper amount of fees. The fee awarded is within the range of the expert testimony. Maine Insurance Co. v. Raser, Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 163.
*910No abuse of discretion having been shown, the order appealed from is affirmed.
PIERCE, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mfrs. Life Ins. Co. v. Ruthine Cave, 295 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1974)…roceed in accordance with the views herein expressed. It is so ordered. BOYD, DEKLE and CARLTON (Retired), JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion in which ADKINS, C. J., and McCAIN, J., concur. . Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Heaver, 253 So. 2d 908 (Fla.App.1971), factually at variance with the instant cause; Kurz v. New York Life Insurance Co., 168 So. 2d 564 (Fla. App.1964), also factually at variance with the instant cause. In Kuril, the First District Court of Appeal distinguished Equitabl…
Authorities Cited
- Me. Ins. Co. v. Raser, 240 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Quincy Burke v. State, 226 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)