GEORGE CATCHES, APPELLANT,
v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 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.
In this second appeal, the court held that an insurer who denies a material obligation of coverage to its insured by refusing equitable apportionment of PIP benefits must pay the insured's attorney's fees, distinguishing this from good-faith negotiations over equitable distribution.
An insurer that denies a material obligation of coverage by refusing equitable apportionment of PIP benefits must pay the insured's attorney's fees under Florida Statute 627.428(1), but an insurer engaged in good-faith negotiations over equitable distribution is not liable for attorney's fees when judicial relief is pursued.
[1] An insurer that denies a material obligation of coverage to its insured, thereby forcing the insured to seek judicial relief, is liable for attorney's fees.
[2] An insurer is not liable for attorney's fees when it in good faith negotiates with its insured regarding the equitable distribution of sums recovered from a tort-feasor a…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Government Employees, in effect, denied a material obligation of coverage to its insured.”
Establishes the critical distinction that the insurer's refusal of equitable apportionment constituted a denial of coverage obligation, triggering attorney's fee liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Catches obtained a $5,000 personal injury protection (PIP) insurance benefit payment from appellee Government Employees Insurance Company. A…
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 PIP cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.
This is the second appeal in this cause.1 An essential fact pertinent to this appeal set out in our prior opinion is: “Appellant brought this suit praying for equitable distribution of the $5,000 PIP benefits. Ap-pellee contends it is entitled to reimbursement of the full $5,000.” [Emphasis supplied.] We held that the trial court erred in denying equitable distribution and reversed.
Now, appellant contends that the trial court, after awarding equitable distribution, erred in not awarding him attorney’s fees incurred in sustaining his position as to his “dispute” with his insurer and relies upon a statement by this Court in Dunmore v. Interstate Fire Insurance Company 2 to such effect. As appellee so aptly points out, in Dunmore the insured filed an application with his insurer for personal injury protection benefits. The insurer did not make payment within the 30-day statutorily dictated period. The insured, upon the insurer’s failure to comply with the terms of the policy, was forced to seek judicial recourse. Clearly, he was entitled to attorney’s fees.
An analogous situation is here presented. Appellee Government Employees did initially pay appellant Catches $5,000.00 he was entitled to by reason of the policy provision for personal injury protection benefits. However, upon the appellee recovering from his tortfeasor, Government Employees took the position that according to the terms of its policy (as amended statutorily), it was entitled to recover the $5,000.00 it had previously paid, and that it was not subject to equitable apportionment. Government Employees, in effect, denied a material obligation of coverage to its insured. We hold that upon such denial, the trial judge erred in not awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statute 627.428(1). We do not hold that an insurer, who in good faith negotiates with its insured as to the “equitable distribution” of sums recovered from a tortfeasor, is liable for attorney’s fees when the insured pursues judicial relief.
Reversed and remanded.
McCORD, J., and SMITH, SAMUEL S., Associate Judge, concur. . Catches v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 295 So. 2d 116 (1 Fla.App.1974).
. Dunmore v. Interstate Fire Insurance Company, 301 So. 2d 502 (1 Fla.App.1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Graff, 327 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…urge reconsideration of our holding that the trial court correctly declined to award appellee Stokeley a fee for the services of her lawyers in the trial court. Appellees argue that such an award was made in Catches v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 318 So. 2d 552 (Fla.App. 1st, 1975), in circumstances not significantly different from those in this case. We believe that the circumstances here are materially different from those in Catches where, by demanding complete reimbursement of PIP benefits previously…
-
Crooks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 659 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…e prevailing party against its insured, Crooks is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 627.428. See Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Graff, 327 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Catches v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 318 So. 2d 552, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1976); Dunmore, 301 So. 2d at 502-03. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded to Crooks for prosecut…
-
Werner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 323 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…PER CURIAM. Reversed on the authority of Catches v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 318 So. 2d 552 (1st DCA Fla. 1975). See also, White v. Reserve Insurance Company, 299 So. 2d 661 (1st DCA Fla. 1974), WALDEN, C. J., OWEN, J., and REAS-BECK, JAMES M., Associate Judge, concur.…
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
- Dunmore v. Interstate Fire Ins. Co., 301 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Catches v. Gov't Emps. INS. Co., 295 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)