CRITERION INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
BRIGIDA GUTIERREZ, 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.
An insurance company appeals an award of $1,500 in attorney's fees to an insured who obtained personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under Florida's Automobile Reparations Reform Act. The court affirms the fee award, rejecting the insurer's argument that the trial court improperly considered pre-suit work by the insured's attorney.
The trial court did not err in awarding $1,500 in attorney's fees. The court properly considered the totality of circumstances, including pre-suit work, in determining a reasonable fee under the applicable statute.
[1] An award of attorney's fees to a successful plaintiff-insured under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act is authorized by statute.
[2] A trial court's award of attorney's fees will be affirmed if the record does not demonstrate that the judge considered improper evidence.
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“With respect to any disputes between the insured and the insurer arising under the Act, § 627.736(8), Fla.Stat., F.S. A., in conjunction with § 627.428, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides for the payment of a reasonable sum as attorney's fees to the successful plaintiff-insured”
Establishes the statutory basis for awarding attorney's fees to a successful insured in disputes under the Automobile Reparations Reform Act
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCriterion Insurance Company denied or delayed payment of PIP and other benefits to Brigida Gutierrez under an automobile insurance policy governed by …
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 Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, appeals an order of the trial court entered August 6, 1974. The order awarded $1,500 to appellee, plaintiff in the trial court, for her attorney’s services in connection with obtaining certain personal injury protection benefits (PIP) and other benefits pursuant to an insurance policy between appellant insurance company and appellee governed by the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Appellant’s basic ground on appeal is that the trial court erred in its order awarding attorney’s fees by taking into consideration the time expended by appellee’s attorney prior to his bringing an action for PIP benefits and after an offer of judgment was filed by appellant. Appellant contends that as of March 6, 1974, it had paid PIP benefits of $3,550.76 to appellee prior to and without the necessity of a suit being filed, and that the trial court improperly took these hours into consideration in its award of attorney’s fees to appellee.
With respect to any disputes between the insured and the insurer arising under the Act, § 627.736(8), Fla.Stat., F.S. A., in conjunction with § 627.428, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides for the payment of a reasonable sum as attorney’s fees to the successful plaintiff-insured, here the appellee.
After a hearing upon appellee’s sworn motion for attorney’s fees, the circuit judge entered the following order:
“Upon argument by counsel and consideration by the Court of the Sworn Motion For Attorney’s Fees, filed by Plaintiff’s attorney and the Court having examined the entire Court file and the evidence before it including sworn testimony by the Plaintiff’s attorney regarding inter alia, services performed, time and expertise required, novelty of the case, the nature of the suit and the amount in controversy and being otherwise fully advised in the premises,
“It is the finding of this Court that an award of attorney’s fees to the Plaintiff’s attorney in the amount of $1500.00 constitutes a fair and reasonable attorney’s fee in this case, and it is therefore,
“ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff’s attorney the sum of $1500.00 as and for attorney’s fees, for which let execution issue.
“DONE AND ORDERED at Key West, Monroe County, Florida on August 6, 1974.
(s)-
Circuit Judge”
After a careful review of the record in the instant appeal and in view of § 627.736(8), we are unable to ascertain that the trial judge considered any improper evidence in entering the order of August 6, 1974 awarding an amount of $1500.00 to appellee for attorney’s fees.
We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Magnetic Imaging Sys. v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 847 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…rbitration did not, therefore, negate Magnetic’s entitlement to a fee award. Moreover, Magnetic’s entitlement to a fee award was not limited to recovering for services rendered only after arbitration was ordered. See Criterion Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 319 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (affirming an award of fees for services incurred both before an action to recover PIP benefits was filed and after an offer of judgment was made). Accordingly, Prudential’s tender of payment entitled Magnetic to a fee award. The…
-
Integon Indem. Corp. v. Lenkowitz, 329 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Criterion Insurance Company v. Gutierrez, Fla.App.1975, 319 So. 2d 70.…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Guerra, 340 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…as entered in favor of appellant. Subsequent to the entry of said summary judgment, appellee, by order, was awarded attorneys’ fees. It is from this award that appellant takes this interlocutory appeal. In Criterion Insurance Company v. Gutierrez, 319 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), we held that with respect to any disputes between the insured and the insurer arising under the Florida Automobile Reparations Act, Section 627.736(8), Florida Statutes (1975), which allows for attorneys fees upon “any dispute” b…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence