TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fernandez v. Alonso

Fernandez v. Alonso, 375 So. 2d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 26, 1979
Docket
No. 79-59
Judges
Pearson, Barkdull and Hubbart
Citations
375 So. 2d 8
Cited by 9

Opinion

375 So.2d 8 (1979)

Jose Elpidio Rodriguez FERNANDEZ and Mirtha Rodriguez, Appellants,

v.

Reinaldo Manuel ALONSO and Industrial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 79-59.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 26, 1979.

*9 Stabinski, Funt, Levine & Vega and Regina F. Zelonker, Miami, for appellants.

Goodhart & Rosner, Greene & Cooper and Robyn Greene, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, Jose Elpidio Rodriguez Fernandez and Mirtha Rodriguez, were plaintiffs claiming personal injury protection benefits for injuries arising out of an accident between plaintiffs' commercial vehicle and appellee Alonso's motor vehicle which was insured by appellee, Industrial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company. [1] This appeal is from a post-judgment order which granted rehearing and set aside a prior order which had allowed to the plaintiffs an attorney's fee for the recovery of PIP benefits.

It is first urged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order on petition for rehearing granted because the defendants had, before the rehearing was granted, appealed an amended final judgment which included an award of an attorney's fee for plaintiffs. We hold that the appeal of the amended final judgment did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to decide the separate attorney's fee issue. The first final judgment reserved jurisdiction to decide the attorney's fee issue. The amended final judgment amended only that portion of the judgment pertaining to costs. By separate order, the court awarded an attorney's fee to plaintiffs. Defendants filed a timely petition for rehearing directed to the attorney's fee issue. Therefore, defendants' subsequent appeal of the amended final judgment when rendered did not affect defendants' right of the court's power to proceed with the attorney's fee issue. See Chipola Nurseries, Inc. v. Div. of Admin., Dept. of Transp., 335 So.2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

Plaintiffs' point upon the merits of the appeal urges that the trial judge erred in denying an award of attorney's fee to plaintiffs, who successfully recovered PIP benefits from the insurer of a colliding vehicle. We think that to award attorney's fees to the plaintiffs here, who had no connection with the named insured, except that his automobile struck their commercial vehicle, would be directly contra to the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in Roberts v. Carter, 350 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1977), where the court held:

* * * * * *

"To eliminate any remaining confusion, we now reaffirm Wilder [ Wilder v. Wright, 278 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973)] and hold that an award of attorney's fees under Section 627.428(1) is available only to the contracting insured, the insured's estate, specifically named policy beneficiaries, and third parties who claim policy coverage by assignment from the insured." 350 So.2d at 79 .

This court, in United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 369 So.2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), has interpreted "contracting insured" to include "claimants who have a direct first party contractual relationship with the carrier." But this interpretation does not aid plaintiffs because they have no contractual relationship at all with the defendant carrier.

Affirmed.

NOTES

[1] See § 627.736(4)(d)(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1977)

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →
1981: 21982: 51987: 11996: 119812026peak 1982 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Industrial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Prygrocki422 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1982)
  2. Prygrocki v. Industrial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.407 So. 2d 345 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
  3. Tracey v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n414 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  4. Tracey v. FLORIDA INS. GUAR. ASS'N414 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  5. Bernstein v. Berrin516 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
  6. Spaulding v. AMERICAN FIRE & INDEM CO412 So. 2d 367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Most recent

  1. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Kambara667 So. 2d 831 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
  2. Bernstein v. Berrin516 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
  3. Industrial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Prygrocki422 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1982)
  4. Howe v. American Indemnity Co.418 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  5. Garrett v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.419 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  6. Tracey v. FLORIDA INS. GUAR. ASS'N414 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Roberts v. Carter, 350 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1977) 66
Wilder v. Wright, 278 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973) 36
US Fid. & Guar. Co. v. State Farm MUT. Auto. INS., 369 So. 2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979) 24
Chipola Nurs., Inc. v. Div. of Admin., Dept. of Transp., 335 So. 2d 617 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976) 18
Burger Chef Sys., Inc. v. Burger Chef of Fla., Inc., 375 So. 2d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list