UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY CO., APPELLANT,
v.
RAFAEL ROSADO, 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.
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. appeals an attorney's fee award in a personal injury protection (PIP) insurance dispute. The court partially affirms and partially reverses, upholding fees for litigating the fee amount itself but reversing fees for pre-suit work and an expert witness fee.
The court affirmed the award of fees for time spent litigating the fee amount. The court reversed and remanded the award for pre-suit work to determine whether it was necessitated by the insurer's unreasonable conduct. The court reversed the expert witness fee award as an abuse of discretion.
[1] Entitlement to attorney's fees may include time expended in litigating the amount of fees to be awarded.
[2] Attorney's fees for work performed prior to filing a complaint may be awarded if the pre-suit legal services were necessitated by the insurer's unreasonable conduct.
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 attorney should expect compensation 'only in the exceptional case where the time required for preparation and testifying is burdensome.'”
Establishes the narrow standard for awarding expert witness fees to attorneys, which the trial court exceeded in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute over attorney's fees in a PIP insurance claim between United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. (insurer) and Rafael Rosado …
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 Claim For Pip Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Three issues are presented in this challenge to an attorney’s fee award: (1) there was no entitlement to an award of fees for time expended in litigating the amount of fees that should be awarded; (2) there was no entitlement to fees for work which was performed prior to filing the complaint for PIP benefits; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in awarding a fee to the plaintiff’s expert witness.
We affirm the award of fees for time spent in litigating the amount of fee on the authority of Sonara v. Star Casualty Ins. Co., 603 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).1
The award of attorney fees for work performed by plaintiff’s attorney pri-or to the filing of the lawsuit is reversed and remanded for a determination whether the pre-suit work, particularly those legal services rendered prior to providing the insurer with proof of claims, was necessitated by the insurer’s unreasonable conduct. See Wollard v. Lloyd's & Cos. of Lloyd’s, 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1983), at 219 n. 2.
The award of an expert witness fee is reversed on the authority of Travieso v. Travieso, 474 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1985), which holds that although a trial court may tax, as costs, an expert witness fee for a lawyer who testifies as an expert as to reasonable fees, the attorney should expect compensation “only in the exceptional case where the time required for preparation and testifying is burdensome.” Id. at 1186. Accord Orlando Regional Medical Center v. Chmielewski, 573 So. 2d 876, 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 583 So. 2d 1034 (Fla.1991). The award of an expert witness fee in this simple PIP case, which settled six days after the case was filed, was an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed' in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
. In Sonara, the question was certified: Whether an insured in a successful suit against an insurer for insurance benefits and attorney's fees under a contract of insurance is entitled to an attorney’s fee award under section 627.428, Florida Statutes (1989), for prosecuting the entire claim, or only for prosecuting the claim for insurance benefits to the exclusion of the claim for attorney's fees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O.A.G. Corp. v. Britamco Underwriters, Inc., 707 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ies of Lloyd’s, 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1983); Fortune Insurance Company v. Brito, 522 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Avila v. Latin American Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 548 So. 2d 894, 894-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). See U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Rosado, 606 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Losicco v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 588 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Hopkins v. The Vizcayans, 582 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 592 So. 2d 683 (Fla.1991). The Wollard doctrine does not apply because Bri-tameo did no…
-
Gonzalez v. Angel Veloso, M.D., 731 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…justifies the enhancement or reduction.”), [emphasis supplied.] Finally, the denial of the plaintiffs expert witness fees was not an abuse of discretion. Travieso v. Travieso, 474 So. 2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 1985); U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Rosado, 606 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Orlando Regional Medical Center v. Chmielewski, 573 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 583 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1991). Affirmed. . The appellees did not accept a $55,000 offer of judgment. The eventual award was $131,-32…
-
Rivers v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 719 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…on the issue of attorney’s fees. We find no departure from the essential requirements of law. The circuit court appro [*385] priately considered Travieso v. Travieso, 474 So. 2d 1184, 1186 (Fla.1985); United States Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Rosado, 606 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) and Orlando Regional Medical Ctr., Inc. v. Chmielewski 573 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. STONE, C.J., and GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., 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
- Wollard v. Lloyd's & Cos. OF Lloyd's, 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1983)
- Travieso v. Travieso, 474 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1985)
- Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Boleslaus J. Chmielewski, 573 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Sonara v. Star Cas. Ins. Co., 603 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)