61 So. 3d 1245
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Staszower and Conn sued Terrence Dunn for personal injuries from an auto accident; Allstate joined as UIM carrier.
- Allstate offered two $100 settlement offers to each plaintiff before trial; both offers were rejected.
- At trial, only Staszower recovered a verdict of $1,670; Dunn's liability policy limit was $10,000.
- Trial court entered a cost judgment against Dunn and Allstate, and denied Allstate’s request for final judgment and fees.
- Court held that the UIM insurer is prevailing where the verdict does not exceed the tortfeasor’s policy limits, affecting costs and eligibility for attorney’s fees.
- On appeal, court reversed and remanded to vacate the cost judgment against Allstate and determine reasonable attorney’s fees in Allstate’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 是否_allstate为胜诉方因判决未超过保险限额 | Staszower contends costs against Allstate are proper as prevailing party. | Allstate contends it is the prevailing party since Dunn’s policy limits not exceeded. | Yes; Allstate is prevailing party because verdict did not activate UIM coverage. |
| 是否Staszower/Conn有权对Allstate征收诉讼成本 | Staszower/Conn argue they prevail against defendants and are entitled to costs. | Allstate as prevailing party should bear costs; costs run against the losing party. | No; because Allstate prevailed, costs must be assessed against Dunn, not Staszower/Conn. |
| Rutkin案是否适用于本案以允许成本分配 | Rutkin supports taxing costs against UIM defendant when uninsured/underinsured counterclaims prevail. | Rutkin distinguishable; involved uninsured tortfeasor and arbitration. | Rutkin distinguishable; not applicable here. |
| 是否应根据768.79及相关要约在本案发放律师费 | Staszower/Conn argue offer affects fee entitlement. | The $100 offers, though to both plaintiffs, are in bad faith or not; §768.79 provides fees to Allstate. | Allstate entitled to attorney’s fees; the $100 offers were made in good faith and compatible with statute. |
| 是否对善意要约影响律师费的裁定 | Offers were made with reasonable belief of no exposure. | Good faith supports fee award; there is evidence supporting good faith. | Yes; the offers were in good faith, supporting fee award to Allstate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marko, 695 So.2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (prevailing party status when verdict is within tortfeasor's policy limits; offers of judgment analyzed)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ferro, 581 So.2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (when damages do not exceed policy limits, UIM has no liability)
- Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (only an award activating UM coverage qualifies as prevailing party)
- Rutkin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 195 So.2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA) (uninsured tortfeasor; distinguished; arbitration context)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Silow, 714 So.2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (good faith of min $100 offer supports fee award under 768.79)
- Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So.2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (good faith necessity for fee offers under statutory prerequisites)