UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
v.
COASTAL RADIOLOGY, LLC, A/A/O CARIDAD ROMERO,
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.
This case involves an appeal by an insurance company challenging the trial court's orders granting attorney's fees to a medical provider. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions, finding the awards supported by competent substantial evidence and that pre-judgment interest was properly awarded.
The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees, as the orders were supported by competent substantial evidence. The court also held that the trial court properly awarded pre-judgment interest on the attorney's fees.
[1] An appellate court reviews an awarded amount of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion.
[2] Factual findings supporting an award of attorney's fees are reviewed for competent substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Because the orders are supported by competent substantial evidence and because the trial court properly awarded pre-judgment interest, we affirm.”
This quote summarizes the appellate court's conclusion and the basis for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoastal Radiology filed complaints for PIP benefits against United Automobile Insurance Company. United eventually confessed judgment and agreed Coast…
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 Standard Of Review For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In these two consolidated appeals1 Appellant, United Automobile Insurance Company (defendant below), appeals the trial court’s orders granting attorney’s fees in favor of Appellee, Coastal Radiology, LLC (plaintiff below). Because the orders are supported by competent substantial evidence and because the trial court properly awarded pre-judgment interest, we affirm.
In both cases Coastal Radiology filed a complaint for PIP benefits. United eventually filed confessions of judgment and stipulated that Coastal Radiology was entitled to attorney’s fees. After the trial court entered final judgment, five attorneys for Coastal Radiology filed motions for fees, which the trial court granted after an evidentiary hearing. United timely appealed. This Court reviews an awarded amount of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. Bateman v. Servs. Ins., 836 So. 2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). This Court reviews factual findings for competent substantial evidence. Babun v. Stok Kon + Braverman, 46 Fla.
L. Weekly D2318a (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 27, 2021). But “[e]ntitlement to attorney’s fees is subject to de novo appellate review.” Id. In both detailed orders on appeal, the trial court set forth “specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended,
and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla. 1985).” See Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 928 So. 2d 449, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Baratta v. Valley Homeowners’ Ass’n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)).
And those findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. To find otherwise would require us to reweigh the evidence. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976) (“It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record on appeal before it.”).
Lastly, we conclude that the trial court properly awarded pre-judgment interest on those attorney’s fees. See Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley South, Inc., 670 So. 2d 929, 930-31 (Fla. 1996) (“[I]nterest accrues from the date the entitlement to attorney fees is fixed through agreement, arbitration award, or court determination . . . .”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley S., Inc., 670 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1996)
- Baratta v. Valley OAK Homeowners' Ass'n AT THE Vineyards, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- William Bateman & Est. of Steven J. Slaughter v. Serv. Ins. Co., 836 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)