T & G LOCKSMITH CORP., ET AL.
v.
GRANADA INSURANCE COMPANY

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-07-09
No. 2024-0916
Del Rio, J., Scales, C.J., Logue, J., Lobree, J.
2025 FL 5756 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025)

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.


Holding

An insurer's voluntary dismissal of a declaratory judgment action after the insureds expressly conceded lack of coverage constitutes a confession of judgment in the insureds' favor, entitling them to prevailing party attorney's fees under section 627.428, Florida Statutes.


Headnotes

[1] An insurer's voluntary dismissal of a declaratory judgment action after the insureds have expressly conceded the insurer's position regarding lack of coverage constitutes…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Facts & Procedural History

Granada Insurance Company sued its insureds, T & G Locksmith Corp. and others, seeking a declaration that they had no coverage for a motor vehicle acc…

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.


Per_curiam
Per Curiam

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 9, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-916 Lower Tribunal No. 22-13358-CA-01 ________________

T & G Locksmith Corp., et al., Appellants,

vs.

Granada Insurance Company, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne Del Rio, Judge.

Twig, Trade, & Tribunal, PLLC, and Morgan L. Weinstein (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellants.

Atkinson, P.A., and John Bond Atkinson and Maria-Gracia Donati, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and LOGUE and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

2

Appellants, who are the appellee’s insureds and the defendants below, appeal a trial court order denying their motion seeking prevailing party attorney’s fees under section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2022). We reverse and remand. Appellee’s lawsuit sought a declaration from the trial court that appellants had no coverage for a motor vehicle accident under appellee’s commercial general liability policy, notwithstanding the fact that appellants had never sought coverage under the policy, and, in both their motion to dismiss and request for admissions responses, expressly conceded the policy provided them with no coverage. Upon our de novo review,1 we are compelled to reverse the challenged order because, under the unique facts and circumstances of this case, appellee’s voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit some eleven months after appellants’ express concessions constituted a confession of judgment in appellants’ favor. Reversed and remanded.

Footnotes
1 See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Best Med. Treatments, Inc., 354 So. 3d 612, 613-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“[T]he issue on appeal is entitlement, which is subject to de novo review.” (citing Babun v. Stok Kon + Braverman, 335 So. 3d 1236, 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021))).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw