Wright v. American International Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wright v. American International Insurance Co.

93 So. 3d 533, 2012 WL 3263743, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12629

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 2012

DocketNo. 5D10-4068

StatusPublished

This text of 93 So. 3d 533 (Wright v. American International 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

Wright v. American International Insurance Co., 93 So. 3d 533, 2012 WL 3263743, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12629 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lloyd Wright appeals from a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs. That judgment stemmed from litigation wherein Mr. Wright was allegedly injured as a result of an automobile accident. Mr. Wright’s case was tried by jury and resulted in a defense verdict. Although Mr. Wright characterizes the issue in terms of a manifest injustice because a “different verdict should have been rendered,” this Court, by prior order, determined that our jurisdiction was limited to the final judg[534]*534ment awarding attorney’s fees and costs due to an untimely notice of appeal.

The final judgment Mr. Wright appealed was entered because he rejected Appel-lee’s proposal for settlement in the amount of $45,000. See § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2010); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442. Other than his assertion that the jury reached the wrong result, Mr. Wright makes no real argument demonstrating error in the award of attorney’s fees and costs, and has only succeeded in incurring additional fees for this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, TORPY and COHEN, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lloyd Wright appeals from a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs. That judgment stemmed from litigation wherein Mr. Wright was allegedly injured as a result of an automobile accident. Mr. Wright’s case was tried by jury and resulted in a defense verdict. Although Mr. Wright characterizes the issue in terms of a manifest injustice because a “different verdict should have been rendered,” this Court, by prior order, determined that our jurisdiction was limited to the final judg[534]*534ment awarding attorney’s fees and costs due to an untimely notice of appeal.

The final judgment Mr. Wright appealed was entered because he rejected Appel-lee’s proposal for settlement in the amount of $45,000. See § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2010); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442. Other than his assertion that the jury reached the wrong result, Mr. Wright makes no real argument demonstrating error in the award of attorney’s fees and costs, and has only succeeded in incurring additional fees for this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, TORPY and COHEN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 3d 533, 2012 WL 3263743, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-american-international-insurance-co-fladistctapp-2012.