Chmilarski v. Empire Fire
Decision Date | 15 June 2022 |
Docket Number | 3D22-611 |
Parties | Michael CHMILARSKI, et al., Petitioners, v. EMPIRE FIRE and Marine Insurance Company, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mintz Truppman, P.A., and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for petitioners.
Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, and Warren Kwavnick (Fort Lauderdale), for respondent.
Before LOGUE, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
Michael Chmilarski and LIAS, Inc. petition for a writ of prohibition seeking review of a trial court's order denying a motion for disqualification. They contend the trial court pre-judged their entitlement to attorney's fees. For the reasons stated below, we grant the writ.
In 2013, Chmilarski and LIAS, Inc. initially sued Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company for failing to pay a claim under an insurance policy. Over its long life, the lawsuit underwent multiple permutations including five amended complaints. After almost nine years of litigation, the plaintiffs’ amended complaint sought rescission of the policy and the defendant's counterclaim also sought rescission of the policy. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment seeking rescission and allowing a refund of the premiums, albeit for assertedly different reasons and dating back to different times.
At the hearing, the trial judge, who had inherited the case as part of a court initiative to resolve longstanding open insurance cases, noted that she anticipated receiving motions for attorney's fees after she ruled on the motions. Chmilarski and LIAS, Inc. indicated that they had indeed pled a request for attorney's fees and intended to file a motion after the court had ruled on the merits. At that point in time, however, no motion for attorney's fees had been filed by either party.
The trial court issued an order ruling on the cross-motions for rescission that contains language about any future claim for attorney's fees that is at the heart of the motion to disqualify. We have emphasized the language at issue:
Upon receiving the order, the Chmilarski and LIAS, Inc. filed a verified motion to disqualify. They contended the trial court had crossed the line from simply forming mental impressions to actually pre-judging the issue of their entitlement to attorney's fees before a motion had been filed and argued. The trial court denied the motion as legally insufficient, and Chmilarski and LIAS, Inc. filed a petition for prohibition.
The test for determining the legal sufficiency of a motion for disqualification is "whether the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial." Law Offices of...
To continue reading
Request your trial