Wapnick v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wapnick v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.

134 So. 3d 968, 2014 WL 1225162, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4365

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 2014

DocketNo. 4D12-4080

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 So. 3d 968 (Wapnick v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.) 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

Wapnick v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 134 So. 3d 968, 2014 WL 1225162, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4365 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case comes to us a second time for review. See Wapnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 54 So.3d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Wapnick appeals the trial court’s order denying his request for attorney’s fees¹ after State Farm voluntarily paid the remainder of his uninsured motorist claim. We affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Although the parties frame their arguments around Florida Statutes Sections 627.428 and 624.155 (2013), there is no need for extended analysis under either section. In his amended complaint, Wap-nick specifically prayed for relief stating “[s]hould the defendant dispute whether the policy provides coverage, plaintiff also demands reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 627.428 and 627.727(8).”

Section 627.727(8) states that “[t]he provisions of s. 627.428 do not apply to any action brought pursuant to this section against the uninsured motorist insurer unless there is a dispute over whether the policy provides coverage for an uninsured motorist proven to be liable for the accident.” § 627.727(8), Fla. Stat. (2013). Since there was never such a dispute, sec[969]*969tion 627.428 does not apply to this case, and Wapnick is not entitled to attorney’s fees.

Section 627.727(8) and its limitation on recovery under section 627.428 were not discussed by either party, and were thus not part of the trial court’s written order. However, our supreme court has held that “if a trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.” Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644 (Fla.1999). Therefore, since there is a basis in the record to support the fact that section 627.428 does not apply, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case comes to us a second time for review. See Wapnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 54 So.3d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Wapnick appeals the trial court’s order denying his request for attorney’s fees¹ after State Farm voluntarily paid the remainder of his uninsured motorist claim. We affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Although the parties frame their arguments around Florida Statutes Sections 627.428 and 624.155 (2013), there is no need for extended analysis under either section. In his amended complaint, Wap-nick specifically prayed for relief stating “[s]hould the defendant dispute whether the policy provides coverage, plaintiff also demands reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 627.428 and 627.727(8).”

Section 627.727(8) states that “[t]he provisions of s. 627.428 do not apply to any action brought pursuant to this section against the uninsured motorist insurer unless there is a dispute over whether the policy provides coverage for an uninsured motorist proven to be liable for the accident.” § 627.727(8), Fla. Stat. (2013). Since there was never such a dispute, sec[969]*969tion 627.428 does not apply to this case, and Wapnick is not entitled to attorney’s fees.

Section 627.727(8) and its limitation on recovery under section 627.428 were not discussed by either party, and were thus not part of the trial court’s written order. However, our supreme court has held that “if a trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.” Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644 (Fla.1999). Therefore, since there is a basis in the record to support the fact that section 627.428 does not apply, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 So. 3d 968, 2014 WL 1225162, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wapnick-v-state-farm-mutual-insurance-co-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack