Catches v. Government Employees Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. X--238,X--238 |
| Citation | 318 So.2d 552 |
| Parties | George CATCHES, Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack S. Graff of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Graff, Mabie, Resenbloum & Magie, Pensacola, for appellant.
Robert P. Gaines of Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for appellee.
This is the second appeal in this cause. 1 An essential fact pertinent to this appeal set out in our prior opinion is: (Emphasis supplied.) We held that the trial court erred in denying equitable distribution and reversed.
Now, appellant contends that the trial court, after awarding equitable distribution, erred in not awarding him attorney's fees incurred in sustaining his position as to his 'dispute' with his insurer and relies upon a statement by this Court in Dunmore v. Interstate Fire Insurance Company 2 to such effect. As appellee so aptly points out, in Dunmore the insured filed an application with his insurer for personal injury protection benefits. The insurer did not make payment within the 30-day statutorily dictated period. The insured, upon the insurer's failure to comply with the terms of the policy, was forced to seek judicial recourse. Clearly, he was entitled to attorney's fees.
An analogous situation is here presented. Appellee Government Employees did initially pay appellant Catches $5,000.00 he was entitled to by reason of the policy provision for personal injury protection benefits. However, upon the appellee recovering from his tort-feasor, Government Employees took the position that according to the terms of its policy (as amended statutorily), it was entitled to recover the $5,000.00 it had previously paid, and that it was not subject to equitable apportionment. Government Employees, in effect, denied a material obligation of coverage to its insured. We hold that upon such denial, the trial judge erred in not awarding attorney's fees pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statute 627.428(1). We do not hold that an insurer, who in good faith negotiates with its insured as to the 'equitable distribution' of sums recovered from a tort-feasor, is liable for attorney's fees when the insured pursues judicial relief.
Reversed and remanded.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Insurance Co. of North America v. Lexow
...921-22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); cf. Litiz Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bowdoin, 365 So.2d 173, 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Catches v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 318 So.2d 552, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (When an insurer refuses to negotiate in good faith, which action constitutes denial of a material obligat......
-
Rodriguez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 78-688
...of equitable distribution to which the company is entitled under § 627.736(8), Fla.Stat. (1975). See also Catches v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 318 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 41 (1976); White v. Reserve Ins. Co., 299 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denie......
-
Crooks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 94-2221
...Section 627.428. See Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Graff, 327 So.2d 88, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Catches v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 318 So.2d 552, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 41 (Fla.1976); Dunmore, 301 So.2d at 502-03. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an......
- Ford v. State