T & G Locksmith Corp. v. Granada Insurance Company

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 9, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-0916
• Status: Published

Opinion

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. 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.

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))).