5D00-111 Scottsdale v. Haynes

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2001 » 5D00-111 Scottsdale v. Haynes

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D00-111

Case Date: 06/18/2001

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. RUTH W. HAYNES, etc., et al., Appellees. ______________________________/ Opinion filed June 22, 2001 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Robert K. Rouse, Jr., Judge. Kenneth M. Rubin of Wiederhold, Moses & Rubin, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant. Laura P. Denault and C. Richard Newsom of Overchuck, Newsome, Schwerer Denault, L.L.P., Orlando, for Appellee Home Away From Home of Holly Hill, Inc. No Appearance for Appellee Ruth W. Haynes, etc. Jeff Tomberg, J.D., P.A., Boynton Beach, Amicus for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers. SHARP, W., J. Scottsdale Insurance Company appeals from a final summary judgment rendered against it, and in favor of Home Away From Home of Holly Hill, Inc. (Home Away). Appellee Bush is the CASE NO. 5D00-111

personal representative of Haynes (now deceased),1 a former resident of Home Away. The issue on appeal is a novel one: whether or not attorney's fees, which might be awarded against Home Away in a suit brought on behalf of Haynes, are covered under Scottsdale's liability policy issued to Home Away. The trial court concluded that they were. We disagree and reverse. The facts in this case are not in dispute. Scottsdale insured Home Away, an adult assisted living facility. In 1995, Haynes' personal representative sued Home Away, claiming it had violated section 400.428 regarding its treatment of Haynes while she was a resident. A jury trial rendered a verdict in the amount of $150,401.20 for compensatory damages and the trial court reserved ruling on the plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees and taxable costs. Scottsdale had provided a defense for its insured and acknowledged coverage for the compensatory damage award. But it sought to intervene at that point to question its liability for attorney's fees which could be awarded to the plaintiff, pursuant to section 400.429. The statute provides: Any plaintiff who prevails in any such action may be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees, costs of the action, and damages, unless the court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact. For suits brought under the statute, it creates the potential liability of a facility like Home Away for a successful plaintiff's attorney's fees, costs and damages. However, the statute does not answer the question of whether Home Away's liability insurer also automatically incurs the same liabilities.

1

Ruth B. Haynes by and through Nancy Bush, personal representative. 2

The liability of an insurer for items assessable against its insured turns on the language of the insurance contract between the insurer and its insured. Scottsdale's insurance contract with Home Away provides: The company will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of injury to which this insurance applies caused by a medical incident which occurs during the policy period. (emphasis supplied) The insurance policy does not define "damages." Scottsdale is liable for attorney's fees under this policy only if attorney's fees are deemed to be damages under its insurance policy issued to Home Away. While the summary judgment below was pending, the third district issued its opinion in Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Pinecrest Limited Partnership, 739 So.2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The trial court felt it was bound by that opinion.2 Scottsdale conceded below that the issue was identical to the issue in this case, but it argued the case should not be precedent because of the brevity of the opinion. The Pinecrest opinion in its totality is as follows: We affirm the final summary judgment as the trial court properly enforced the insurance policy in accordance with its plain language and entered judgment concerning the attorney's fee issue in favor of appellees. See Wilson v. Wasser, 562 So.2d 339 (Fla. 1990); Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Bouchoc, 514 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1987); Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Lamm, 218 So.2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 225 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1969).

Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1992); Kenmark Constr., Inc. v. Cronin, 765 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Reinhardt v. Bono, 564 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). 3

2

This brief statement differs little from a PCA, which has no precedential value,3 and for that reason, we doubt that the above opinion has any precedential value. But even assuming arguendo that it does have precedential value, we do not think that the cases relied upon are on point with this case. Two of the cases are medical malpractice cases which involve the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund (the Fund), and the third involves the issue of whether the former civil court of record exceeded its $5,000 jurisdictional limit in entering a $6,000 judgment. The liability of the Fund involves different statutory language, as well as different social policies, than does the language of section 400.29. The third case, although supportive of Pinecrest, is not otherwise on point with the issues here. The general rule is that attorney fees are not recoverable in a cause of action unless there is statutory authority or a contractual provision upon which to rest such liability. Hubbel v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 758 So.2d 94 (Fla. 2000); Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. Union Finance Co., 54 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1951); Fred Howland, Inc. v. Gore, 13 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1942). See also Fox v. City of West Palm Beach, 383 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1967). We can find no indication in

Download 5D00-111 Scottsdale v. Haynes.pdf