Tampa Chiropractic Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 141 So. 3d 1256

Tampa Chiropractic treated nine State Farm–insureds in 2010 and received assignments of their PIP benefits; it billed State Farm for the charges.
State Farm served written (6)(b) document requests seeking medical records and broader materials (ownership, tax records, leases) and withheld payment pending compliance.
Tampa Chiropractic filed an amended counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that State Farm’s requests exceeded the scope of section 627.736(6)(b) and could not be a condition of payment.
While litigation was pending, State Farm paid the disputed medical bills and announced it no longer sought the previously requested documents; State Farm then moved for summary judgment arguing the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the controversy was moot.
The trial court entered final summary judgment for State Farm for lack of jurisdiction; Tampa Chiropractic appealed, arguing payment after filing the counterclaim constituted a confession of judgment entitling it to attorney’s fees under section 627.428.
The Fifth District reversed in part and remanded to determine the timing of payments; payments made after the counterclaim was filed should be treated as a confession of judgment and award fees; payments made before filing are not.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether payment of disputed claims after suit deprives the court of jurisdiction and moots the declaratory claim	Tampa Chiro: Payment after filing is a confession of judgment; court retains power to award fees	State Farm: Payment removes any justiciable controversy; court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction	Court: Payment does not automatically divest jurisdiction; must determine payment timing; if paid after filing, confession doctrine applies
Whether insurer’s post-filing payment triggers attorney’s fees under §627.428 via confession-of-judgment doctrine	Tampa Chiro: Payment after suit is functional equivalent of judgment; fees are warranted because insurer unreasonably withheld payment	State Farm: Denies that confession doctrine applies when controversy is mooted by payment; argues no basis for fees	Court: If insurer paid after counterclaim and had previously refused payment (forcing suit), confession doctrine applies and fees should be awarded

Wollard v. Lloyd’s & Cos. of Lloyd’s, 439 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1983) (establishes confession-of-judgment doctrine for insurer payments made after suit filed)
Basik Exports & Imports, Inc. v. Preferred Nat’l Ins. Co., 911 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (applies confession-of-judgment principle to post-filing insurer payments)
Gibson v. Walker, 380 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (explains statutory purpose of §627.428 to discourage litigation by encouraging prompt payment)
Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Battaglia, 503 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (insurer misconduct or unreasonable withholding can support fee award)
Jerkins v. USF & G Specialty Ins. Co., 982 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (confession doctrine applied where insurer would not have paid without judicial intervention)
Bassette v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 803 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (attorney’s fees awarded where insurer’s pre-suit threats to deny coverage led insured to sue and insurer later relented)
First Floridian Auto & Home Ins. Co. v. Myrick, 969 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (policy reasons behind confession-of-judgment doctrine to prevent insurer avoidance of fee liability)
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Palmer, 297 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (recognizes unfairness of insurers avoiding §627.428 liability by paying after suit but before judgment)