Case Name: Karla STEWART, Appellant, v. MIDLAND LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-02-25
Citations: 899 So. 2d 331
Docket Number: No. 2D03-5186
Parties: Karla STEWART, Appellant, v. MIDLAND LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellee.
Judges: DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 899
Pages: 331–335

Head Matter:
Karla STEWART, Appellant, v. MIDLAND LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellee.
No. 2D03-5186.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb. 25, 2005.
Rehearing Denied April 22, 2005.
Julian A. Sanchez of Julian A. Sanchez, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Wm. Jere Tolton, III, and Timón V. Sullivan of Ogden & Sullivan, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
WHATLEY, Judge.
Karla Stewart appeals a final summary judgment finding that Midland Life Insurance Company was not liable for her attorney's fees pursuant to section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2001). We reverse.
Stewart's husband, Gregory Stewart, was insured under a life insurance policy issued by Midland. Stewart was the beneficiary of the policy. Gregory Stewart died on November 3, 2001. His death occurred within the two-year contestable period in the policy. See § 627.607, Fla. Stat. (2001). Following her husband's death, Stewart submitted a completed proof of loss form together with a certified copy of the death certificate, an authorization for the release of medical records, and the original policy of life insurance. Midland received these documents via certified mail on January 15, 2002.
After receipt of the proof of loss form and related documents, no payment was forthcoming within sixty days. Further, after the receipt of such documents, Midland made no additional requests for information from Stewart. Eighty-six days after the proof of loss was received by Midland, Stewart filed a complaint seeking damages and attorney's fees. Six days after the complaint was filed, but before service of process, Midland sent payment to Stewart.
Midland and Stewart filed competing motions for summary judgment, which were both denied. Thereafter, Midland filed a renewed motion for summary judgment arguing that under these facts, attorney's fees could not be awarded pursuant to section 627.428. The trial court agreed and entered final summary judgment for Midland.
Section 627.428 provides:
(1) 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.
(2) As to suits based on claims arising under life insurance policies or annuity contracts, no such attorney's fee shall be allowed if such suit was commenced pri- or to expiration of 60 days after proof of the claim was duly filed with the insurer.
(3) When so awarded, compensation or fees of the attorney shall be included in the judgment or decree rendered in the case.
(emphasis added).
Midland's renewed motion/or summary judgment contended that payment of the life insurance benefits did not constitute the substantial equivalent of a confession of judgment. This premise has been decided adversely to Midland's position. In Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Palmer, 297 So.2d 96, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), the court held:
[I]t is neither reasonable nor just that an insurer can avoid liability for statutory attorney's fees by the simple expedient of paying the insurance proceeds to the insured or the beneficiary at some point after suit is filed but before final judgment is entered, thereby making unnecessary the entry of a judgment. . We think the statute must be construed to authorize the award of an attorney's fee to an insured or beneficiary under a policy or contract of insurance who brings suit against the insurer after the loss is payable even though technically no judgment for the loss claimed is thereafter entered favorable to the insured or beneficiary due to the insurer voluntarily paying the loss before such judgment can be rendered. After all, such voluntary payment by the insurer is the equivalent of a confession of judgment against it.
See also Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679, 684-85 (Fla.2000) (holding that when the insurer pays the claim after the lawsuit has been filed, the payment operates as a confession of judgment and entitles the insured to attorney's fees); Wollard v. Lloyd's & Companies of Lloyd's, 439 So.2d 217, 218 (Fla.1983) ("Requiring the plaintiff to continue litigation in spite of an acceptable offer of settlement merely to avoid having to offset attorney's fees against compensation for the loss puts an unnecessary burden on the judicial system, fails to protect any interest — the insured's, the insurer's or the public's — and discourages any attempt at settlement. This literal requirement of the statute exalts form over substance to the detriment of public policy, and such a result is clearly absurd."). We conclude that the fact Midland was unaware of the lawsuit at the time of payment does not defeat Midland's obligation to pay attorney's fees.
Midland also asserts that it never denied the insurance claim, and therefore, it was not necessary for Stewart to file a complaint to enforce her rights under the contract. We disagree. A beneficiary's need for policy proceeds is often acute. How long was Stewart's counsel to wait without payment before suit was filed? Under section 627.428, it was appropriate to file suit and seek attorney's fees after the applicable sixty-day period had passed.
We therefore reverse the final summary judgment for Midland and remand the cause for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of Stewart.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, concurs.
ALTENBERND, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
. The proof of loss form was provided to Stewart by Midland.
. Stewart negotiated the payment check.