Summary
addressing the matter by way of first-tier certiorari
Summary of this case from Certified Windshield, LLC v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.Opinion
No. 4D11–2761.
2012-02-1
HALLANDALE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER (a/a/o Kristi Cox), Petitioner, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Peter Weinstein, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 09–17029CACE(12) and 09–26427CACE(25).Marlene S. Reiss of Marlene S. Reiss, Esq., P.A., Miami, for petitioner. Michael J. Neimand, Miami, for respondent.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Peter Weinstein, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 09–17029CACE(12) and 09–26427CACE(25).Marlene S. Reiss of Marlene S. Reiss, Esq., P.A., Miami, for petitioner. Michael J. Neimand, Miami, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Hallandale Chiropractic Center seeks review of the circuit court's denial of a motion for appellate attorney's fees. Hallandale prevailed in part on appeal, and the insurer agrees that pursuant to section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes, Hallandale is entitled to appellate attorney's fees contingent upon it prevailing in the underlying action on remand. Danis Indus. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 645 So.2d 420 (Fla.1994); Ramirez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 67 So.3d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Comprehensive Health Ctr., LLC v. United Auto. Ins. Co., –––So.3d ––––, 2011 WL 2848667 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the denial of Hallandale's motion for appellate attorney's fees. On remand the court shall grant the motion contingent on petitioner prevailing in the trial court.
Petition Granted.