NO ERROR IN DETERMINING THAT INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO ITS PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT WHERE THERE WAS NO AMBIGUITY OR CONFLICT WITH THE RELEASE

Vega v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co., 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2278 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 24, 2025):

The insurer successfully defended a breach of contract suit over tornado damage the insured said it should have covered. It sought attorney’s fees based on a proposal for settlement.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, there was no discrepancy between the proposal and the release because both identified the intent to fully and completely resolve the claims asserted (the proposal included all claims which could have been asserted by it in the lawsuit as well as any claims arising out of or related to those claims and or adjustment of those claims). The proposal did not involve future claims unrelated to the lawsuit.

While the court affirmed entitlement to fees, it was error for the trial court to adjudicate the amount when the notice of hearing only identified a motion for entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs. Given the language of the notice of hearing and the related motion, the trial court violated the insured’s due process rights when it expanded the scope of entitlement hearing to determine the amount of fees and costs.