Spiegel v. Williams
| Decision Date | 06 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 71338,71338 |
| Citation | 545 So.2d 1360,14 Fla. L. Weekly 330 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 330 Firth S. SPIEGEL, M.D., Petitioner, v. Bud Pratt WILLIAMS, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Larry S. Stewart of Stewart, Tilghman, Fox & Bianchi, P.A., and James C. Blecke, Miami, for respondent.
Richard A. Sherman of the Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, amicus curiae for Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriters Ass'n.
Joe N. Unger of the Law Offices of Joe N. Unger, P.A., Miami, amicus curiae for Florida Patient's Compensation Fund.
We have for review Williams v. Spiegel, 512 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), which conflicts with State ex rel. Royal Insurance Co. v. Barrs, 87 Fla. 168, 99 So. 668 (1924), and Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Lamm, 218 So.2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 225 So.2d 529 (1969). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Respondent Williams was the prevailing party in a medical malpractice action. His posttrial judgment entered pursuant to section 768.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), limited the liability of the defendant doctors, Spiegel and Ebken, and their professional association, Spiegel and Ebken, P.A., to $300,000 ($100,000 each) which was paid to Williams by defendants' insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. Williams appealed the judgment to the district court of appeal, contending that St. Paul should also be liable for the payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of $206,000 awarded to him pursuant to section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1981). The district court of appeal concluded that the plaintiff's attorneys' fees constituted costs covered by St. Paul's policy and reversed the trial court on this point.
In Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Bouchoc, 514 So.2d 52 (Fla.1987), this Court decided the question of whether attorneys' fees awarded to the plaintiff under section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1981), should be paid by the Fund or by the health care providers. We held that the Fund was obligated to pay unless the plaintiff's attorneys' fees were payable under the provisions of the health care provider's liability insurance coverage. The instant case involves the determination of whether the health care provider's liability policy covered the payment of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees.
The argument is made that the attorneys' fees are payable under the following language of St. Paul's insurance policy:
We'll pay all costs of defending a suit, including interest on that part of any judgment that doesn't exceed the limit of your coverage.
We do not see how the statutory award of plaintiff's attorneys' fees can be construed to be a cost of defending a suit.
While a policy could no doubt be written specifically to cover court-awarded attorneys' fees, liability insurers are normally only responsible for the payment of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees where bad faith is involved or the insured prevails in a direct action against the company. 8A J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 4894.65 (1981); § 627.428, Fla.Stat. (1987). On the other hand, liability insurers have usually been responsible for the payment of taxable costs over and above the policy limits. 8A J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 4894 (1981); 15A M. Rhodes, Couch Cyclopedia of Insurance Law §§ 56:10, 56:16 (rev. ed. 1983). Therefore, the result reached by the district court of appeal would be justified if the award of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees could be considered as a species of taxable costs. Yet, ever since this Court's decision in State ex rel. Royal Insurance Co. v. Barrs, 87 Fla. 168, 99 So. 668 (1924), attorneys' fees recoverable by statute are regarded as "costs" only when specified as such by the statute which authorizes their recovery. Accord Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Lamm, 218 So.2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 225 So.2d 529 (1969). Indeed, there are some statutes which provide for an award of attorneys' fees to be taxed as costs. E.g., § 713.29, Fla.Stat. (1987). However, section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1981), did not specify that attorneys' fees could be taxed as costs.
The dissent adopts a position that was not relied upon by the district court of appeal. We cannot accept the reasoning that because St. Paul agreed to pay the costs of defense, including interest on any judgment, and that because interest is not a cost of defense, this somehow means that St. Paul agreed to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees which is also not a cost of defense. It is beyond dispute that if a policy is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, it should be construed against the insurance company. However, contracts of insurance should also be construed to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the principle of strict construction should not be extended to add a meaning to language that is clear. Rigel v. National Casualty Co., 76 So.2d 285 (Fla.1954). The language of this policy is clear. The dissent seems to concede that the plaintiff's attorneys' fees do not fall within the words "costs of defending a suit," standing alone. The fact that the policy mischaracterizes interest as a cost of defense does not make any less clear the obligations of the insurance company. The policy requires it to pay the costs of defending a suit as well as specified portions of interest on any judgment--nothing more, nothing less. It does not cover the payment of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees.
We quash the opinion of the district court of appeal.
It is so ordered.
The policy phrase "all costs of defending a suit" surely can not be limited to a successful defense. From the perspective of the policyholder, he is seeking to be insulated from the costs attendant to both a successful and an unsuccessful defense. He expects the insurer to pay such costs, even if the defense undertaken by the insurer is unsuccessful. That this is the intent of the insurer also seems to be borne out by the policy language itself and by the fact that St. Paul failed to expressly limit its liability in this area.
The policy contains the following recitation of "additional benefits" which "are in addition to the limits of ... coverage" under the policy:
We'll defend any suit brought against you for damages covered under this agreement. We'll do this even if the suit is groundless or fraudulent. We have the right to investigate, negotiate and settle any suit or claim if we think that's appropriate.
We'll pay all costs of defending a suit, including interest on that part of any judgment that doesn't exceed the limit of your coverage. But we won't defend a suit or pay any claim after the applicable limit of your coverage has been used up paying judgments or settlements.
We'll also pay premiums for appeal bonds or to release property that's being used to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Maronda Homes, Inc.
... ... Lamm , 218 So.2d ... 219, 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)); see also Smith v ... Sitomer , 550 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 1989); ... Spiegel v. Williams , 545 So.2d 1360, 1362 (Fla ... 1989). Thus, in Jet Charter , we concluded that the ... attorneys' fees provided for in ... ...
-
S.-Owners Ins. Co. v. Maronda Homes, Inc. of Fla.
...in the judgment or decree rendered in the case.").Subsequent Florida cases provide support for this position. See Spiegel v. Williams, 545 So. 2d 1360, 1362 (Fla. 1989) (agreeing with Lamm); Smith v. Sitomer, 550 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 1989) (agreeing with Spiegel).7 Although a number of fed......
-
Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minnesota v. Fitzgerald
...meaning of the words employed. Simmons v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co., 496 So.2d 243, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See Spiegel v. Williams, 545 So.2d 1360, 1362 (Fla.1989) (applying rule in interpretation of same coverage provision). In this instance, I believe that the clause in question appli......
-
Foremost Ins. Co. v. Warmuth, 93-3721
...Excess of Judgment Over Policy Limit, 76 A.L.R.2d 983, 984 (1961). Florida has embraced this general rule as stated in Spiegel v. Williams, 545 So.2d 1360, 1361 (Fla.1989), "liability insurers have usually been responsible for the payment of taxable costs over and beyond the policy limits."......
-
In Coverage Case, Florida Court Expansively Construes Costs To Include Attorney's Fees
...the Florida Supreme Court treats costs and attorney's fees as separate matters for insurance coverage purposes. In Spiegel v. Williams, 545 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1989), the Florida Supreme Court considered whether the defendants' insurance policy covered an award of attorney's fees to the preva......