BRYAN ALLEN SMITH AND AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD CONLON, GERALDINE CONLON AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 insurance coverage dispute arising from an automobile accident, the Third District Court of Appeal held that Bryan Allen Smith, found to be a covered insured under the Conlons' Allstate policy, is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees under Florida Statute Section 627.428, though his insurer American Bankers is not.
Smith is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees as an insured under the Allstate policy pursuant to Section 627.428, but American Bankers is not entitled to fees as it is neither an insured nor a beneficiary contemplated by the statute.
[1] An insurer is obligated to pay a reasonable sum for the insured's attorney fees when a judgment is rendered against the insurer and in favor of the insured in a suit pros…
[2] An insurer is not entitled to attorney fees under a statute providing for such fees when a judgment is rendered against an insurer in favor of an insured or beneficiary,…
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“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.”
The statutory provision (Section 627.428) that authorizes recovery of attorneys fees when judgment is entered against an insurer in favor of an insured.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRandy Reyes filed suit for personal injuries from an automobile accident against Smith (driver), American Bankers (Smith's insurer), the Conlons (car …
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 Insured Status cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal by Bryan Allen Smith and American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, defendants/cross-plaintiffs, from an order denying a motion for attorneys fees against defendants/cross-defendants Edward Conlon, Geraldine Conlon and Allstate Insurance Company, in an action stemming from an automobile accident.
A complaint was filed by Randy Reyes, not a party to this appeal, seeking damages for personal injuries against the defendants, Bryan Allen Smith, the driver of the car; American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Smith’s insurer; Edward Con-lon, the owner of the car; Geraldine Con-lon, Edward’s wife, who allegedly gave Smith permission to drive the car; and Allstate Insurance Company, the Conlons’ insurer. Allstate denied liability on the grounds that Smith did not have permission to drive the Conlons’ car. Smith and American Bankers filed a cross-claim seeking a declaratory judgment that Smith was covered by the Allstate policy and that Allstate should defend the case. The cross-claim included a demand for attorneys fees.
Following a one and one-half day jury trial on the cross-claim, the jury rendered a verdict finding that Smith did have permission to drive the Conlons’ car, and that Smith is covered under the Conlons’ Allstate policy. Smith and American Bankers renewed their demand for attorneys fees by motion. Subsequently, the trial judge entered final judgment on the verdict declaring that Smith was a covered insured under the Allstate policy and that Allstate was obligated to defend Smith. Jurisdiction to determine entitlement to and amount of attorneys fees was reserved. Following another hearing, the judge entered an order denying the motion for attorneys fees, ruling that Smith and American Bankers
“. . . are not entitled to Attorney’s Fees against the Crossdefendants, EDWARD CONLON, GERALDINE CON-LON and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and the Motion for Attorney’s Fees is hereby denied.” (emphasis added)
This interlocutory appeal ensued.
The record reflects that the claim for attorneys fees in the trial court was predicated upon Section 627.428, Florida Statutes (1975), which provides that,
“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.”
Pursuant to this statute, then, Smith would be “entitled” to attorneys fees since a judgment had been entered against Allstate and in favor of Smith as an insured under the policy issued by Allstate to the Conlons. Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in ruling that Smith was not entitled to attorneys fees, and we reverse the final judgment in that respect.
However, we find that the trial court was correct in ruling that American Bankers is not entitled to attorneys fees as it is neither an insured, nor a beneficiary as contemplated by Section 627.428, supra. Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company, 285 So. 2d 684 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).
Accordingly, the order on motion for attorneys fees is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to modify the order to reflect that Smith is “entitled” to attorneys fees, and for a determination of the amount of fees incurred by him, if any.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. City OF OPA Locka, 368 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…subrogated rights against American, as the insurer for LeMeur. The plaintiffs’ fees are therefore not recoverable under Section 627.428(1). Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dunkel, 363 So. 2d 190, 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see Smith v. Conlon, 355 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Central Mutual Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Co., 285 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Furthermore, although Opa Locka was a nominal party plaintiff, the judgment in this case clearly inured entirely to the benefit of Trav…
-
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 369 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…rland v. West Palm Beach, 141 Fla. 244, 193 So. 297, 298 (1940). In accordance with this view, this court, in an opinion rendered after Roberts, specifically held that an omnibus insured is entitled to fees under Section 627.428(1). Smith v. Conlon, 355 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also, e. g., Rodriguez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 367 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We do so again.8 Affirmed. . No such settlement was ever effected. . Indeed, under a standard provision of these policies, a settlement or ju…
-
Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Prygrocki, 422 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1982)…ured motorist policy awarded attorney’s fees); Norfolk (wife of named insured entitled to recover attorney’s fees); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (insurer required to pay attorney’s fees of resident spouse of named insured); Smith v. Conlon, 355 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (individual unrelated to named insured recovered attorney’s fees on jury finding that he had permission to use named insured’s car). Our use of the term “contracting insured” in Roberts was not intended to revise the clear statut…
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
- Hollywood, Inc. v. City OF Hollywood, 285 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)