News & Events

Conroy Simberg's Hinda Klein obtains a reversal of a trial court's award of attorney fees in a PIP suit filed over pennies of interest.

On August 17, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. PAN AM Diagnostic Services Inc. d/b/a PAN AM Diagnostic of Orlando a/a/o Claudine Jean, 4D21-2156, (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), reversing an attorney fee award of $24,028.27 in a suit filed over $0.14 cents of statutory interest.

The provider initially filed suit against Liberty Mutual for underpayment of interest in the amount of $0.14. Summary Judgment was granted for the provider on underpaid interest and final judgment was entered against Liberty Mutual for $0.14 in underpaid interest and $24,028.27 in attorney’s fees and costs. The Provider neither sought nor was awarded any PIP benefits.

Liberty Mutual appealed the judgement for attorney’s fees and costs to the Provider, as a direct conflict with Fla. Stat. 627.428(1) and 627.736(8). The 4th DCA agreed with Liberty Mutual stating “the trial court erred in awarding the Provider’s attorney’s fees because interest owed on a late PIP benefit is not in and of itself a PIP benefit.” Litigation over whether interest is due is not a dispute over benefits are owed and thus does not trigger entitlement to attorney’s fees.

In short, the provider was not entitled to an award for attorney’s fees and costs absent an award for PIP Benefits under Fla. Stat. 627.736(8).

Chief Justice Klingensmith issued a special concurring position pointing out the amount of time, effort, cost, and judicial recourses expended only for a provider to recover $0.14. According to him this case “was never about the appellee being shorted pocket change” but rather purely for the purposes of procuring attorney’s fees.

While DCA’s have seen numerous suits over trifling amounts, Justice Klingensmith stated that “here the bar has been lowered even further to fourteen cents”, and that had the “issue of de minimis been raised in the lower court and on appeal, I would have reversed on that ground as well.”