Danis Industries Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 83,016,83,016 |
| Citation | 645 So.2d 420 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly S591 DANIS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners, v. GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Mike Piscitelli and Mary M. Piccard of Cummings, Lawrence & Vezina, P.A., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Steven R. Schooley, Leslie K. O'Neal and Christopher V. Carlyle of Holland & Knight, Orlando, for respondents.
We have for review the following question certified to be of great public importance:
DOES THE PREVAILING PARTY TEST OF Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, 604 So.2d 807 (Fla.1992), APPLY TO AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 627.428 AND 627.756, FLORIDA STATUTES?
Danis Industries Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 629 So.2d 985, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
This cause arose from a dispute over a construction subcontract that ultimately resulted in a court determination that Respondents would prevail on only a portion of their claims, but nevertheless awarding Respondents attorney's fees against Petitioners' surety. Petitioners now contend that they are the "prevailing party" under this Court's analysis in Moritz, whereas Respondents argue that the statutes cited by the district court are contrary to the Moritz standard and thus prevail over it. The relevant statute here states:
Upon the rendition of a judgment or decree by any of the courts of this state against an insurer and in favor of any named or omnibus insured or the named beneficiary under a policy or contract executed by the insurer, the trial court or, in the event of an appeal in which the insured or beneficiary prevails, the appellate court shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured or beneficiary a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured's or beneficiary's attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had.
Sec. 627.428(1), Fla.Stat. (1989). This language specifically applies to payment or performance bonds written by a surety insurer to indemnify against losses associated with construction projects, Sec. 627.756, Fla.Stat. (1989), which is the case at hand here.
The language of the statute quoted presents an issue far different from those in Moritz and our more recent opinion in Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1993). Here, the statute is a one-way street offering the potential for attorneys' fees only to the insured or beneficiary. The apparent public policy underlying this aspect of the statute is to discourage insurers from contesting valid claims and to reimburse successful policy holders forced to sue to enforce their policies. Fewox v. McMerit Constr. Co., 556 So.2d 419, 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
In Moritz and Prosperi, on the other hand, the right to attorneys fees potentially existed for either party, whether by contract or by statute. Thus, these cases applied only where there might be some confusion as to who actually is the prevailing party--where neither party has fully won nor fully lost, but both potentially can claim attorneys' fees. Because that is not possible here, the entire rationale for Moritz and Prosperi simply is inapplicable.
Under the present statute, an insured or beneficiary who prevails is entitled to attorneys' fees. The statute offers no similar prospect to the surety, nor does the statute say that the fees...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols
...under any other provision, including the offer of judgment statute. She emphasizes our decision in Danis Industries Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 645 So.2d 420 (Fla.1994), which explained that section 627.428 "is a one-way street offering the potential for attorneys' fees on......
-
Morrison v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
...and it is made part of the judgment entered in favor of the insured. See id. 627.428(3); see also Danis Indus. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 645 So.2d 420, 421 (Fla. 1994) ("Under [Fla. Stat. 627.428], an insured or beneficiary who prevails is entitled to attorney['s] fees."......
-
Nichols v. State Farm Mut.
...a "one-way street offering the potential for attorneys' fees only to the insured or beneficiary." Danis Indus. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 645 So.2d 420, 421 (Fla. 1994). Because of the imposition of fees pursuant to section 768.79, instead of traveling down an unobstructe......
-
Baker Protective Services v. FP Inc.
...525 So.2d 881 (Fla.1988); accord Danis Indus. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 629 So.2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), aff'd, 645 So.2d 420 (1994); Greenough v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 449 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); cf. C.U. Assocs. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So.2d 1177 (Fla.1......
-
Attorneys' fees on appeal: basic rules and new requirements.
...Moritz does not apply to fees claims under FLA. STAT. [section] 627.428. See Danis Indus. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 645 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 1994); Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Percefull, 638 So. 2d 1026, 1030 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1994) (on rehearing). Under the one-sided pr......
-
Proposals for settlement in PIP Cases: Should U.S. Security Ins. Co. v. Cahuasqui be overturned?
...2d 1266 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1995). (4) FLA. STAT. [sections] 627.736(8). (5) Danis Industries Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 645 So. 2d 420 (Fla. (6) Delta Casualty, 753 So. 2d at 59. (7) Id. (8) Ivey, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S1103 at p. 5. (9) Tucker v. Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. of Shelb......