MURPHY WHITE DAIRY AND FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
EMSLEY JORDAN, 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.
The court interpreted an exclusion in a liability insurance policy to determine if it applied to damages to a loaned motor vehicle, ultimately finding the exclusion did not preclude coverage.
The court held that the exclusion in Florida Farm Bureau's policy for property 'in charge of the insured' did not apply to motor vehicles, thus coverage was not precluded for the damaged truck.
John McMullen damaged a truck loaned to him by Chick Smith Ford. Universal Underwriters, the insurer for Chick Smith Ford, paid for the damages and su…
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 Attorney'S Fees In Workers' Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants challenge the finding of the judge of industrial claims that claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney’s fee of $1,000 based upon the fact that benefits accorded claimant by a settlement agreement exceeded the amount originally offered claimant prior to his obtaining counsel. Additional medical examination was voluntarily provided upon request. A prior order approved the parties’ joint petition subject to their stated inability to agree on the amount of an attorney’s fee.
Under the law applicable to this claim, attorney’s fees are regulated by § 440.34(1), Fla.Stat., providing that fees may be recovered in only three instances: (a) where the employer/carrier files notice of controversy; (b) where the employer/carrier declines to pay a claim on or before the 21st day after they have notice of the claim; or (c) where the employer/carrier unsuccessfully resists payment and the injured person employs an attorney and successfully prosecutes the claim. See Creighton v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 190 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1962); and Retirement Center v. Eichman, IRC 2-3172 (June 2, 1977).
The record in this case contains no indication that the carrier filed a notice of controversy, or that any claim was filed. Further, it does not show that the employer/carrier unsuccessfully resisted payment of benefits claimed or requested. The order awarding attorney’s fees is accordingly reversed except to the extent of $100.00, the amount as to which the record evidence supports the award of a fee for appearance at claimant’s deposition.
McCORD, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.