UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a/a/o JOHNNY EDMONDSON

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 8, 2023
Docket21-2401
StatusPublished

This text of UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a/a/o JOHNNY EDMONDSON (UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a/a/o JOHNNY EDMONDSON) 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
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a/a/o JOHNNY EDMONDSON, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 8, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2401 Lower Tribunal No. 19-2198 SP ________________

United Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant,

vs.

North Shore Medical Center, Inc., a/a/o Johnny Edmondson, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Chiaka Ihekwaba, Judge.

Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.

Florida Advocates, and Christopher Tuccitto, James D. Underwood, and Yasmin Gilinsky (Dania Beach), for appellee.

Before HENDON, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Goslin v. Racal Data Commc’ns, Inc., 468 So. 2d 390,

392 (Fla. 3d DCA) (“Imposition of costs after judgment is largely within the

discretion of the trial judge, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a

clear showing of abuse of that discretion.”); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coastal

Radiology, LLC, 340 So. 3d 528, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (noting a trial

court’s order must set forth “‘specific findings as to the hourly rate, the

number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction

or enhancement factors as required by Florida Patient’s Comp. Fund v.

Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla. 1985)’” (quoting Parton v. Palomino

Lakes Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 928 So. 2d 449, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)));

Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351, 352–53 (Fla.

1987) (“[I]t is well settled that the testimony of an expert witness concerning

a reasonable attorney’s fee is necessary to support the establishment of the

fee.”); Brake v. Murphy, 736 So. 2d 745, 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“[F]ees

cannot be assessed based solely on the testimony of the attorney claiming

the fee, but rather expert testimony must be offered substantiating the fee.”).

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

Related

Parton v. PALOMINO LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS
928 So. 2d 449 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Goslin v. Racal Data Communications, Inc.
468 So. 2d 390 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Brake v. Murphy
736 So. 2d 745 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone
514 So. 2d 351 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe
472 So. 2d 1145 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a/a/o JOHNNY EDMONDSON, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-automobile-insurance-company-v-north-shore-medical-center-inc-fladistctapp-2023.