Geico General Insurance Co. v. Hollingsworth, 157 So. 3d 365

Auto-accident suit: Kassam (Geico-insured) was sued by Hollingsworth; Kassam rejected Hollingsworth’s proposal for settlement of $9,999.99.
Jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict for $16,608.24, exceeding the proposal by >25%.
Under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442, Hollingsworth obtained an award of attorney’s fees totaling $113,175 against Kassam.
Hollingsworth sought to collect the fee judgment from Geico; the trial court found Geico liable under the Policy’s “Additional Payments” clause, which promises to pay “all court costs charged to an insured in a covered lawsuit.”
Geico appealed, arguing the fee award under the Offer of Judgment statute is not recoverable from an insurer not served with the settlement proposal; the court reviewed the contract interpretation de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Policy’s “Additional Payments” clause covers attorney’s fees assessed against the insured under Fla. Stat. § 768.79	The fee judgment is a “court cost charged to an insured” and thus falls within the Policy’s promise to pay all such costs	Geico: fees under the offer-of-judgment statute cannot be recovered from an insurer that was not a party to or served with the proposal; precedent bars recovery	The clause covers the fee judgment; ambiguous or broad policy language is construed for coverage, so Geico is liable
Whether precedents barring recovery of § 768.79 fees from an insurer (when insurer was not served) control here	N/A (focus on contract language and policy coverage)	Geico: cases like Meyer, Sparks, Feltzin prohibit recovery from insurer under these circumstances	Court: those cases are distinguishable because they did not address insurer contractual liability; here coverage flows from the Policy, so precedent does not control

Trout v. Apicella, 79 So.3d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (standards for de novo review on policy interpretation)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez, 70 So.3d 566 (Fla. 2011) (ambiguities in insurance policies construed for coverage)
Meyer v. Alexandre, 772 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (refusing to recover § 768.79 fees from insurer not party/served)
Sparks v. Barnes, 755 So.2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (same principle regarding nonparty insurers)
Feltzin v. Bernard, 719 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (same)
Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn. v. Fitzgerald, 593 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (costs taxed against insured fall within insurer’s contractual promise to pay costs)
Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 155 So.3d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (same Geico policy language held to cover attorney-fee sanctions as “court costs”)