Pine Plaza Holdings, LLC v. Benita Benninger Diaz

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 13, 2025
Docket4D2024-3281
StatusPublished

This text of Pine Plaza Holdings, LLC v. Benita Benninger Diaz (Pine Plaza Holdings, LLC v. Benita Benninger Diaz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pine Plaza Holdings, LLC v. Benita Benninger Diaz, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

PINE PLAZA HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant,

v.

BENITA BENNINGER DIAZ, Appellee.

No. 4D2024-3281

[August 13, 2025]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Keathan B. Frink, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE23- 006225.

Christopher W. Lee of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, Miami, for appellant.

Lawrence M. Siff of Lawrence M. Siff, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

CONNER, J.

After the plaintiff filed her personal injury suit, she confirmed by email she would accept the defendant’s settlement offer. The defendant sent a written settlement agreement for the plaintiff to sign. The plaintiff signed the agreement and returned it to the defendant. After the plaintiff did not receive the settlement funds, the plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and requested, in addition to the principal settlement amount, interest at the statutory rate from the date she accepted the settlement until the date her counsel received the settlement check. The plaintiff also requested attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court entered an order granting the plaintiff’s enforcement motion which included interest at the statutory rate and attorney’s fees.

Below and on appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in awarding statutory interest pursuant to section 627.4265, Florida Statutes (2023), because an insurance company was not a party to the settlement agreement. On appeal, the defendant renews the argument that the attorney’s fees award was in error for two reasons: (1) the settlement agreement did not contain an attorney’s fees provision; and (2) insufficient evidence was submitted to support the award.

The plaintiff concedes the trial court erred in awarding interest and attorney’s fees.

We accept the concession of error and reverse the award of interest and attorney’s fees. We remand for further proceedings, including an in- camera inspection of the settlement agreement to determine whether section 627.4265, Florida Statutes (2023), applies to this case, and an evidentiary hearing as to entitlement and amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded, if any.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pine Plaza Holdings, LLC v. Benita Benninger Diaz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pine-plaza-holdings-llc-v-benita-benninger-diaz-fladistctapp-2025.