STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
CARIBBEAN REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., ETC.
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.
State Farm seeks certiorari to quash a decision denying its motion for appellate attorney's fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, despite prevailing on appeal. The Third District Court of Appeal holds that the Circuit Court, sitting in its appellate capacity, departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the motion for appellate attorney's fees when the trial court had already awarded such fees to the prevailing party.
The Circuit Court, sitting in its appellate capacity, departed from the essential requirements of law by denying State Farm's motion for appellate attorney's fees under section 768.79. When a party prevails on appeal under identical circumstances as those for which trial court attorney's fees were awarded, the appellate court should conditionally grant the motion for appellate attorney's fees based on the same statute.
[1] A circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, departs from the essential requirements of law when it denies a motion for appellate attorney's fees under section 768…
[2] Denial of appellate attorney's fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, by a circuit court acting in its appellate capacity, when the movant prevailed on appeal and w…
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“the circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, should have awarded United appellate attorney's fees, pursuant to section 768.79. The failure to do so was a departure from the essential requirements of law.”
Establishes the controlling precedent that appellate courts must award attorney's fees under section 768.79 when circumstances warrant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm prevailed in the trial court and was awarded attorney's fees. State Farm subsequently prevailed on appeal in the Circuit Court's appellate …
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 Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
FERNANDEZ, J.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit denying its motion for appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2019). After prevailing and having been awarded attorney’s fees in the trial court, State Farm likewise prevailed on appeal in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, sitting in its appellate capacity; however, State Farm’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to 768.79, was denied without elaboration.
We have held that the Circuit Court, sitting in its appellate capacity, departs from the essential requirements of law when it denies a motion for appellate attorney’s fees under identical circumstances. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Virga, 116 So. 3d 1288, 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“[T]he circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, should have awarded United appellate attorney's fees, pursuant to section 768.79. The failure to do so was a departure from the essential requirements of law.”); Motter Roofing, Inc. v. Leibowitz, 833 So. 2d 788, 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“[T]he circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the petitioner's request for appellate attorney's fees.”). In so doing, the Circuit Court violated procedural due process, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003). Based on the trial court’s determination of petitioner’s
entitlement to attorney’s fees under section 768.79, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in not conditionally granting State Farm’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees based on the same statute.
Order quashed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Motter Roofing, Inc. v. Leibowitz, 833 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. John S. Virga, D.C., P.A., 116 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)