State Farm Insurance Co. v. Reyes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State Farm Insurance Co. v. Reyes

137 So. 3d 1122, 2014 WL 1257519, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4410

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 2014

DocketNo. 3D12-2838

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 So. 3d 1122 (State Farm Insurance Co. v. Reyes) 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

State Farm Insurance Co. v. Reyes, 137 So. 3d 1122, 2014 WL 1257519, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4410 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SALTER, J.

State Farm Insurance Company appeals a final order denying its motion for attor[1123]*1123ney’s fees and costs. The issue is whether State Farm’s proposals for settlement submitted to each of the insureds (plaintiffs below, appellees here) fulfilled the fee-shifting requirements set forth in section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2010), and in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. After State Farm obtained a final summary judgment in its favor and moved to recover its attorney’s fees and costs, the trial court entered a written order denying the motion without specifying any basis for the denial.

The transcript of the hearing on the motion indicates that the appellees argued that the proposals for settlement were nominal and in bad faith, and that State Farm had made similarly-nominal offers on “late-filed” Hurricane Wilma claims in some sixty-eight other cases. The eighteen-minute hearing on the motion consisted of argument by counsel, and obviously there was no opportunity to assess the particular facts of the other sixty-eight alleged cases.

Finding no proof of bad faith in State Farm’s proposals to the appellees in this case, and no determination of bad faith by the trial court on the record of these particular proposals for settlement, we reverse the order below and remand with directions to grant the motion and to award State Farm its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in conformance with the cited statute and rule. Nominal offers are not necessarily indicative of bad faith. Downs v. Coastal Sys. Inti, Inc., 972 So.2d 258, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA2008).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

SALTER, J.

State Farm Insurance Company appeals a final order denying its motion for attor[1123]*1123ney’s fees and costs. The issue is whether State Farm’s proposals for settlement submitted to each of the insureds (plaintiffs below, appellees here) fulfilled the fee-shifting requirements set forth in section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2010), and in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. After State Farm obtained a final summary judgment in its favor and moved to recover its attorney’s fees and costs, the trial court entered a written order denying the motion without specifying any basis for the denial.

The transcript of the hearing on the motion indicates that the appellees argued that the proposals for settlement were nominal and in bad faith, and that State Farm had made similarly-nominal offers on “late-filed” Hurricane Wilma claims in some sixty-eight other cases. The eighteen-minute hearing on the motion consisted of argument by counsel, and obviously there was no opportunity to assess the particular facts of the other sixty-eight alleged cases.

Finding no proof of bad faith in State Farm’s proposals to the appellees in this case, and no determination of bad faith by the trial court on the record of these particular proposals for settlement, we reverse the order below and remand with directions to grant the motion and to award State Farm its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in conformance with the cited statute and rule. Nominal offers are not necessarily indicative of bad faith. Downs v. Coastal Sys. Inti, Inc., 972 So.2d 258, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA2008).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 So. 3d 1122, 2014 WL 1257519, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-insurance-co-v-reyes-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack