Case Name: Martin RABATIE, Appellant, v. U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-07-25
Citations: 581 So. 2d 1327
Docket Number: Nos. 88-2229, 88-2503
Parties: Martin RABATIE, Appellant, v. U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: Before HUBBART, NESBITT and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 581
Pages: 1327–1332

Head Matter:
Martin RABATIE, Appellant, v. U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Nos. 88-2229, 88-2503.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 25, 1989.
On Rehearing En Banc Oct. 16, 1990.
On Motion for Rehearing July 2, 1991.
Freedman & Neufeld and Michael J. Eis-ler, for appellant.
Magill & Lewis and R. Fred Lewis, Miami, Nuzzo & Gonzalez, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, NESBITT and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff/insured Martin Rabatie from (1) an adverse final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant/insurer U.S. Security Insurance Co. in an automobile insurance coverage action filed below, and (2) an order awarding attorney's fees for the defendant/insurer in this action. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
First, we conclude that the trial court correctly entered final summary judgment for the defendant/insurer in this action as the automobile the plaintiff/insured was driving at the time of the subject accident was not a "covered auto" under the insurance policy involved in this case. We reach this result because the plaintiff/insured failed to notify the defendant/insurer that the former had acquired ownership of this automobile within thirty days after becoming the owner of same, as required by the subject insurance policy; the fact that the subject accident occurred and a claim based thereon was filed within the thirty-day period does not, as urged, change this result because there can be no coverage of an after-acquired vehicle under the policy without notification to the defendant/insurer prior to the accident upon which the claim is filed. Garrote v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 496 F.2d 1168 (5th Cir.1974); Reliance Ins. Co. v. D'Amico, 528 So.2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Johnson v. Travelers Indem. Co., 438 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Lowe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 420 So.2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Second, we conclude that the trial court erred in entering an attorney's fee award in favor of the defendant/insurer under Section 768.79(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). We reach this result because the above statute does not provide for an attorney's fee award in the event the defendant, as here, prevails in the underlying action. The subject statute authorizes an attorney's fee award for the defendant only in the event "the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent less than [an] offer [of judgment]" made by the defendant pretrial, and refused by the plaintiff, § 768.79(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987); clearly, then, there must be a judgment for the plaintiff of a particular type, as defined in the statute, in order to award attorney's fees to the defendant. In the instant case, however, there was no "judgment obtained by the plaintiff" of any type; to the contrary, the judgment below was entered in favor of the defendant. This being so, the prevailing defendant herein was not entitled to an attorney's fees award under the statute.
The final summary judgment under review is therefore affirmed; the attorney's fee order under review is reversed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL, HUBBART, NESBITT, BASKIN, FERGUSON, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.