UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. COASTAL RADIOLOGY, LLC, A/A/O EDUARDO CEREJIDO ( 2022 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 9, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D21-0288 and 3D21-0324
Lower Tribunal Nos. 20-0253 AP; 14-11017 SP;
20-0276 AP; 12-9945 SP
________________
United Automobile Insurance Company,
Appellant,
vs.
Coastal Radiology, LLC,
a/a/o Caridad Romero and
a/a/o Eduardo Cerejido,
Appellees.
Appeals from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Chiaka
Ihekwaba, and Natalie Moore, Judges.
Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.
Law Offices of Joseph R. Dawson, and Joseph R. Dawson (Ft.
Lauderdale), for appellees.
Before LINDSEY, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these two consolidated appeals 1 Appellant, United Automobile
Insurance Company (defendant below), appeals the trial court’s orders
granting attorney’s fees in favor of Appellee, Coastal Radiology, LLC (plaintiff
below). Because the orders are supported by competent substantial
evidence and because the trial court properly awarded pre-judgment
interest, we affirm.
In both cases Coastal Radiology filed a complaint for PIP benefits.
United eventually filed confessions of judgment and stipulated that Coastal
Radiology was entitled to attorney’s fees. After the trial court entered final
judgment, five attorneys for Coastal Radiology filed motions for fees, which
the trial court granted after an evidentiary hearing. United timely appealed.
This Court reviews an awarded amount of attorney’s fees for abuse of
discretion. Bateman v. Servs. Ins., 836 So. 2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA
2003). This Court reviews factual findings for competent substantial
evidence. Babun v. Stok Kon + Braverman, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2318a (Fla.
3d DCA Oct. 27, 2021). But “[e]ntitlement to attorney’s fees is subject to de
novo appellate review.” Id.In both detailed orders on appeal, the trial court set forth “specific
findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended,
1
On our own motion, we consolidate case nos. 3D21-0288 and 3D21-0324.
2
and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by
Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.
1985).” See Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 928 So. 2d
449, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Baratta v. Valley Homeowners’ Ass’n
at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). And
those findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. To find
otherwise would require us to reweigh the evidence. See Shaw v. Shaw,
334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976) (“It is not the function of the appellate court to
substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the
testimony and evidence from the record on appeal before it.”). Lastly, we
conclude that the trial court properly awarded pre-judgment interest on those
attorney’s fees. See Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley South,
Inc., 670 So. 2d 929, 930-31 (Fla. 1996) (“[I]nterest accrues from the date
the entitlement to attorney fees is fixed through agreement, arbitration
award, or court determination . . . .”).
Affirmed.
3