Case Name: LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDICAL SAVINGS INSURANCE COMPANY, DefendantAppellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-14
Citations: 288 F. App'x 691
Docket Number: No. 07-13784
Parties: LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDICAL SAVINGS INSURANCE COMPANY, DefendantAppellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 288
Pages: 691–692

Head Matter:
LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDICAL SAVINGS INSURANCE COMPANY, DefendantAppellee.
No. 07-13784
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 14, 2008.
Elinor Elizabeth Baxter, H. Jack Klin-gensmith, Walters, Levine, Klingensmith, & Thomison, P.A., Sarasota, F.L., for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Matthew W. Dietz, Law Office of Matthew Dietz, Miami, F.L., for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lee Memorial Health System ("LMHS") appeals the district court's denial of its Motion for Attorney's Fees. LMHS prevailed in its lawsuit against Medical Savings Insurance Company ("MSIC") and recovered a total of $246,277.16 in damages. LMHS then sought to recover an additional $533,798.70 in attorney's fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.6698. The district court denied LMHS's motion on the ground that Fla. Stat. § 627.515(2) exempts MSIC from attorney's fees that it would otherwise be liable for under § 627.6698.
On appeal, LMHS argues that § 627.515(2) does not exempt MSIC from attorney's fees because (1) LMHS did not present evidence at trial that any group insurance policies were issued or delivered outside Florida; (2) LMHS did not present evidence at trial that each insured was a member of an association or group through which MSIC offered a group health insurance policy; and (3) the certificates entered into evidence do not contain the statement required by § 627.515(2)(b) in contrasting color.
Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in specifically finding that the policies in question were issued or delivered outside Florida, to persons enrolled in the associations, and in compliance with the requirements of § 627.515(2)(b). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.