EEZZZZ-ON TRAILERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 attorney is not entitled to fees for litigating the issue of attorney's fees when the client, as the prevailing party, has no interest in the fee recovered.
An insurer voluntarily dismissed a declaratory judgment action against its insured, who was the prevailing party. The trial court awarded attorney's f…
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 Insurance Coverage Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s order denying attorney’s fees to appellant’s EEZZZZ-ON’s attorney. Appellee Bankers sued its insured EEZZZZ-ON asking the trial court to declare that EEZZZZ-ON was not covered under its liability insurance policy for an accident involving one of its trailers. EEZZZZ-ON through its attorney defended the action. Bankers later voluntarily dismissed the action and paid EEZZZZ-ON the full amount of the policy limits and the trial court awarded EEZZZZ-ON an attorney’s fee for services rendered until that point.
We determine that only one issue merits discussion, that is whether appellant’s attorney was entitled to a fee for litigating the issue of attorney’s fees. This court in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Moore, 597 So. 2d 805, 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) held:
An attorney cannot be awarded fees for time spent litigating the issue of attorney’s fees where the client, as prevailing party, has no interest in the fee recovered. U.S. Security Insurance Co. v. Cole, 579 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
In this case the insured as the prevailing party had no interest in the fee sought by appellant’s attorney. Accordingly, we affirm.
We note as we did in Cole that our conclusion puts us in conflict with decisions of our sister courts. See, e.g., Sonara v. Star Casualty Ins. Co., 603 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 585 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Ganson v. State, Dep't of Administration, 554 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); rev’d on other grounds, 566 So. 2d 791 (Fla.1990); Gibson v. Walker, 380 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
FRANK, A.C.J., PARKER, J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eezzzz-On Trailers, Inc. v. Bankers Ins. Co., 632 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1994)…PER CURIAM. We review the decision of the district court of appeal in EEZZZZ-ON Trailers, Inc. v. Bankers Insurance Co., 619 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), on the ground of conflict. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. On the authority of our recent decision in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1993), we quash the decision under review and remand for reconsid…
Authorities Cited
- Gibson v. Walker, 380 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Dep't of Admin. v. Ganson, 566 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1990)
- Ganson v. State, 554 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- U.S. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Cole, 579 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Elec. Assocs., Inc. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 585 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Zaetler v. State, 597 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Sonara v. Star Cas. Ins. Co., 603 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)