Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed January 4, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1358

Lower Tribunal No. 06-1866 SP

________________

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Best Medical Treatments, Inc., etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Stephanie 

Silver, Judge.

Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, and Nancy W. Gregoire 

Stamper (Ft. Lauderdale); Beighley, Myrick, Udell & Lynne, P.A., and Maury 

Udell, for appellant.

Twig, Trade, & Tribunal, PLLC, and Morgan L. Weinstein (Ft. 

Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals 

from a final judgment following a jury trial. The trial court awarded attorney’s 

fees to counsel for Appellee, Best Medical Treatments, Inc. a/a/o Lilian 

Gonzalez, Luis Gonzalez, and Zoila Soto. On appeal, State Farm argues 

that the fee award was incorrectly granted directly to counsel, rather than to 

Best Medical. We reverse and remand the case to the trial court so that fees 

can be awarded directly to Best Medical as party to the litigation.

I. BACKGROUND

The underlying case involved a car accident after which the three 

named individuals received medical care from Best Medical. In 2006, Best

Medical sued State Farm for less than $5,000 in past-due PIP benefits. Best 

Medical is the assigned beneficiary of the named insured.

In March 2016, Best Medical filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Interest 

on Attorney’s Fees and Costs. At the same time, its counsel (Peter G. 

DePrimo, Esq.) filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Interest on Attorney’s Fees 

and Costs under his own name. The opening paragraph of both motions 

indicated that Best Medical was the one seeking the award, via assignment 

from State Farm’s insured. In 2019, both Best Medical and DePrimo re-filed 

their motions. 
3

On April 12, 2021, the trial court held a hearing at which DePrimo 

sought a rate of $600 per hour for 66.5 hours of work, while State Farm 

sought to limit the fee award to $550 per hour for 66.3 hours of work. 

Discussion of DePrimo’s fees concluded early in the hearing; the trial court 

agreed with State Farm’s estimate and declared that it would “award the 550 

at 66.3 hours, so for a total award for Mr. DePrimo of $36,465 by stipulation 

of the defense, understanding the plaintiff stipulated to the number of hours 

and was just asking for the $600 rate.”

No objection was made at the time. On April 13, 2021, before the 

hearing was fully concluded, the court awarded the requested attorney’s fees 

directly to DePrimo. State Farm timely appealed.

In its initial brief, State Farm alleges that this fee order was made “in 

the absence of any advance notice to State Farm and without completing the 

fee hearing,” that that it “was submitted to the court . . . but, apparently, was 

not provided to State Farm’s counsel in advance of its entry.” In its answer, 

Best Medical does not dispute this allegation; it asserts that “[t]he trial court 

stated it would enter judgment payable to Mr. DePrimo for the amounts 

specified and, after stating that such award was by stipulation and receiving 

no objection, did so in its fee order.” In its reply, State Farm further clarifies 

that while it agreed to the amounts, “it never stipulated to an order ‘payable 
4

directly to the firm’ or ‘payable to Mr. DePrimo,’ as [Best Medical] insists, 

because the court never uttered those words or any others disclosing that 

intention” and that “[h]ad it done so, State Farm’s counsel would have had 

notice of the court’s intention to enter the DePrimo Fee Order and an 

opportunity to object.” 

II. ANALYSIS

The parties addressed the applicable standard of review and Section 

627.428(1), Florida Statutes (2022). However, the statutory argument is 

ultimately dispositive. Florida law requires attorney’s fees to be paid to a 

party to the litigation, not to non-party counsel.

a. The standard of review 

State Farm argues that the applicable standard of review is de novo, 

which applies to entitlement to attorney’s fees, the legal conclusions of a trial 

court, and the right to procedural due process.

Best Medical admits that entitlement to attorney’s fees is subject to de 

novo review. However, Best Medical argues that the issue on appeal is really 

a review of an order fixing said fees and so is subject to review for abuse of 

discretion. See Babun v. Stok Kon + Braverman, 335 So. 3d 1236, 1240 

(Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“The appellate standard of review for an awarded 

amount of attorney’s fees is abuse of discretion.”).
5

State Farm is correct; the applicable standard of review is de novo. 

Here, the amount of the fees is not contested. Instead, the issue on appeal 

is entitlement, which is subject to de novo review. See id. at 1240

(“Entitlement to attorney’s fees is subject to de novo appellate review.”)

b. Section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes

Both parties cite to section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (2022), which 

permits an award of attorney’s fees only to an insured or a beneficiary: 

Upon the rendition of a judgment or decree by 

any of the courts of this state against an insurer and 

in favor of any named or omnibus insured or the 

named beneficiary under a policy or contract 

executed by the insurer, the trial court or, in the event 

of an appeal in which the insured or beneficiary 

prevails, the appellate court shall adjudge or decree 

against the insurer and in favor of the insured or 

beneficiary a reasonable sum as fees or 

compensation for the insured’s or beneficiary’s 

attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is 

had. 

State Farm argues the fee order violates section 627.428. It contends 

a plain reading of the above statute describes only two classes that are 

entitled to an attorney’s fee award: insureds and beneficiaries. State Farm 

asserts that, as stated in Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Philco Finance 

Corp., 356 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), “[a] fee money award is 

payable by one party to another . . . not by one party to the other’s lawyer, 

either as a debt or a penalty.” State Farm asserts that the award must be 
6

payable from it to Best Medical, not from it to Best Medical’s counsel. It also 

cites a recent opinion from this Court affirming the substance of the final 

judgment but ultimately reversing “because ‘[e]ntering a judgment against a 

nonparty is fundamental error.’” Corredor v. Nichols, 342 So. 3d 793, 794

(Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (quoting Norville v. BellSouth Advert. & Publ’g Corp., 

664 So. 2d 16, 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). 

By contrast, Best Medical argues that the fee order does not violate 

section 627.428. It asserts there is no clear statutory prohibition on a trial 

court awarding fees directly to a party’s counsel and that since Best Medical 

requested the relief, the fee order can be made payable to its counsel.

State Farm is correct. The trial court’s award of attorney’s fees was 

substantively correct, but the statute requires attorney’s fees to be paid to a 

party to the litigation, not to non-party counsel. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because section 627.428 requires attorney’s fees to be paid directly to 

an insured or beneficiary as party to the litigation, we reverse and remand

this case to the trial court so that the fee award can be granted to Best 

Medical as party to this litigation.

Reversed and remanded.