GEICO General Insurance Co. v. Williams
111 So. 3d 240
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Fatal 2007 car crash; plaintiff is mother and personal representative of decedent's estate; sued driver and vehicle owner; GEICO insured defendants and defended them under policy having $25k/$50k limits; plaintiff offered settlement under sec. 768.79 for $150k, not accepted; trial yielded $2.5M verdict against driver, later reduced to $250k after Fabre analysis; judgment reserved jurisdiction to amend for fees/costs; GEICO tendered $25k but no interest; plaintiff sought attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest under offer-of-judgment and prevailing-party principles; trial court awarded fees/costs and interest, and reserved rights to add GEICO to the final judgment; GEICO sought rehearing and appealed after amended final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of adding GEICO to final judgment | Plaintiff argues timely under nonjoinder statute and Rule 1.530 | GEICO argued motions were untimely | Timely; court affirmed adding GEICO to judgment |
| Abandonment of rehearing-based arguments | GEICO abandoned pending rehearing arguments by filing notice of appeal | GEICO contends some arguments preserved | Arguments raised only in rehearing abandoned; not preserved for review |
| Jurisdiction to join GEICO as party to the final judgment | GEICO was properly joinable to recover fees/costs; final fee judgment reserved jurisdiction | Timeliness issues and lack of joinder defeated joinder | Jurisdiction proper; timely addition to final judgment under §627.4136(4) and Rule 1.530 upheld |
| Policy language covering attorneys’ fees | Policy provisions reasonably include attorney fees | Policy language does not cover attorneys’ fees | Waived on appeal; not reviewed on the merits (abandoned) |
| Nonjoinder statute scope and finality of fee judgments | Fees are collateral to main action; fee judgment ripe after entitlement/amount fixed | Nonjoinder limits; main judgment finality should be used for timing | Fee judgment timely added; not reopened main action; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barner v. Barner, 673 So.2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (abandonment of motion for rehearing upon filing notice of appeal)
- Yost v. Fiallos, ex rel. Tarazona, 64 So.3d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (abandonment when notice of appeal filed before ruling on rehearing)
- Jonsson v. Dickinson, 46 So.3d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (arguments in rehearing not preserved if motion abandoned)
- Krock v. Rozinsky, 78 So.3d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (issues in rehearing abandoned when notice of appeal filed)
- Ulrich v. Eaton Vance Distribs., Inc., 764 So.2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (attorney’s fees collateral to main dispute; finality anchored to entitlement/amount)
- Herrera v. Seguros Catatumbo, 812 So.2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (non-reopening of final judgment under §627.4136(4))
- Meyer v. Alexandre, 772 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (party as ‘party’ under offer of judgment statute)
- Steele v. Kinsey, 801 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (party status under offer of judgment statute)