Government Employees Insurance Company v. Alysia M. Macedo, 228 So. 3d 1111

Lombardo had GEICO auto liability coverage with settlement/control clause and "Additional Payments" promising to pay "all investigative and legal costs incurred by us" and "all reasonable costs incurred by an insured at our request."
Macedo sued Lombardo for injuries; she served a $50,000 proposal for settlement that was not accepted; a jury later awarded her $243,954.55.
Macedo joined GEICO to the judgment and obtained attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida’s offer-of-judgment statute (§ 768.79); the trial court taxed those against GEICO jointly with Lombardo.
The First District affirmed, relying on New Hampshire Indemnity Co. v. Gray, holding the policy language ambiguous and covering fees/costs awarded against the insured.
GEICO sought review, arguing (1) "costs" do not include attorneys’ fees and (2) fees were not "incurred by an insured at our request" because GEICO did not specifically request the insured to incur those fees.
The Florida Supreme Court approved the First District, ruling the Additional Payments provision ambiguous and construing it in favor of coverage for the fees and costs awarded under the offer-of-judgment statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Macedo)	Defendant's Argument (GEICO)	Held
Whether "costs/ legal expenses" in Additional Payments include attorneys’ fees awarded under § 768.79	The policy language ("legal expenses," "legal costs," and index listing) is broad; ambiguous terms should be construed for coverage, so fees are covered	"Costs" typically exclude attorneys’ fees; the phrase refers only to costs, not fees	Court: Ambiguity exists ("legal expenses" plus "court costs" creates overlap); construed for coverage — fees are covered
Whether fees were "incurred by an insured at our request" where insurer had sole settlement/control authority	Because GEICO had exclusive settlement control and chose to litigate, fees incurred as a consequence were effectively "at [GEICO]’s request"	A "request" means an affirmative ask or authorization; insurer didn’t specifically request insured to incur fees, so coverage does not attach	Court: Insurer’s control/authority over settlement makes the phrase ambiguous; construed for coverage — fees are covered
Precedential conflict with Steele v. Kinsey (2d DCA)	First District/Florida Supreme Court: Gray is correct; Steele’s narrow meaning of "request" ignores insurer’s control and cooperation obligations	GEICO relied on Steele to argue exclusion under common/legal definitions of "request"	Court approves First District, disapproves Steele to extent inconsistent; holds policy ambiguous and resolves for coverage

Washington Nat’l Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 2013) (contracts construed de novo; read policy as whole)
Fayad v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 899 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2005) (ambiguity requires two reasonable interpretations — one for coverage and one excluding)
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2000) (ambiguity read against insurer in favor of coverage)
New Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Gray, 177 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (insurer’s choice to litigate can make expenses incurred by insured fall within policy phrase "at our request")
Steele v. Kinsey, 801 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (interpreted "request" narrowly to require authorization; disapproved to extent inconsistent)
Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hollingsworth, 157 So. 3d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (attorneys’ fees under offer-of-judgment treated as covered "court cost")
Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 155 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (attorneys’ fee sanction covered as "court cost" under Additional Payments)
Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn. v. Fitzgerald, 593 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (attorneys’ fees sanction within insurer’s obligation to pay "all costs taxed against the Insured")