CHESTER L. DUNMORE, APPELLANT,
v.
INTERSTATE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Dunmore appeals the lower court's denial of attorney's fees in his successful suit to recover no-fault insurance benefits. The court reversed, holding that Florida's no-fault insurance statute unambiguously requires attorney's fees to be awarded whenever a judgment is rendered against an insurer in any dispute arising under the statute.
The court held that attorney's fees must be awarded. Section 627.428, Florida Statutes, unambiguously requires that upon rendition of a judgment against an insurer in any dispute under the no-fault insurance provisions, the court shall award attorney's fees to the insured.
[1] An insurer must pay personal injury protection benefits within thirty days of receiving a claim, and this time limitation is not tolled by the need to verify the claim.
[2] The burden is on the insurer to authenticate a no-fault insurance claim within the statutory time period.
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“To rule otherwise would render the recently enacted 'no-fault' insurance statute a 'no-pay' plan — a result we are sure was not intended by the legislature.”
Establishes the court's interpretive principle that the statute must be read to effectuate legislative intent and require timely payment of benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 23, 1972, Dunmore sustained serious injuries in an automobile accident and was hospitalized until December 12, 1972. He filed an applicatio…
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 No-Fault Insurance Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
SPECTOR, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a lower court order denying attorney’s fees in his successful suit to recover “no-fault” insurance benefits from appellee.
On October 23, 1972, appellant sustained serious injuries in an automobile accident as a result of which he was hospitalized until December 12, 1972. An application for “no fault” benefits was filed by appellant on January 16, 1973, including an executed authorization for medical information and wage and salary information. Payment of the benefits were not made within thirty days as required by Section 627.736(4) (d) and appellant filed suit. A default judgment was entered but later set aside. Appellee did not contest appellant’s entitlement to the $5,000.00 benefits but merely disputed the allowance of attorney’s fees.
Section 627.736(4) (b) provides that personal injury protection benefits shall be paid within thirty days of claim. Section 627.736(8) states that “With respect to any dispute under the provisions of §§ 627.-730-627.741 between the insured and the insurer, the provisions of § 627.428 shall apply.” Section 627.428 provides that upon the rendition of a judgment against an insurer in this state, the court shall award attorney’s fees.
It appears to us that the statutory language is clear and unambiguous. The insurance company has thirty days in which to verify the claim after receipt of an application for benefits. There is no provision in the statute to toll this time limitation. The burden is clearly upon the insurer to authenticate the claim within the statutory time period. To rule otherwise would render the recently enacted “no-fault” insurance statute a “no-pay” plan — a result we are sure was not intended by the legislature.
Likewise, the statute is clear that in “any dispute” arising under the “no- fault” statute, §§ 627.730-627.741, Florida Statutes, which proceeds to judgment against an insurer, attorney’s fees shall be awarded to the insured, § 627.428, Florida Statutes.
Accordingly, we reverse with instructions to the lower court to award appropriate attorney’s fees, including fees for this appellate proceeding.
BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Farren Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)…3d DCA 1999), on the basis of express and direct conflict with Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1995); Wollard v. Lloyd’s & Companies of Lloyd’s, 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1983); and Dunmore v. Interstate Fire Insurance Co., 301 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons detailed below, we quash the Third District’s decision in Ivey. FACTS While standing on a sidewalk, Farren Ivey was struck by an automobile operated by an Al…1 / 2
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006)…Act: Florida law is clear that in “any dispute” which leads to judgment against the insurer and in favor of the insured, attorney’s fees shall be awarded to the insured. See §§ 627.736(8), 627.428(1); see also Dunmore[ v. Interstate Fire Ins. Co., 301 So. 2d 502, 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) ]. That is, under PIP law, the focus is outcome-oriented. If a dispute arises between an insurer and an insured, and judgment is entered in favor of the insured, he or she is entitled to attorney’s fees. It is the incorrect…
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 808 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2001)…within the statutory time period. To rule otherwise would render the recently enacted “no fault” insurance statute a “no pay” plan-a result we are sure was not intended by the legislature. Id. at 683-84 (quoting Dunmore v. Interstate Fire Ins. Co., 301 So. 2d 502, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)); see also Amador v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 748 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Pacheco, 695 So. 2d 394, 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Martinez v. Fortune Ins. Co., 684 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Crook…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence