Despite choosing to take a “dangerous risk” (as True Builders’ counsel put it) in proceeding with litigation in circuit court due to a jurisdictional question, True Builders requested the Supreme Court of Florida (“Supreme Court”) to invoke discretionary review of an appellate court decision that True Builders claimed conflicted with Supreme Court precedent and opinions of other Florida District Courts of Appeal.
In True Builders a/a/o David Joiner, et. al. v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, True Builders initially filed litigation in circuit court. However, as the case progressed, it became apparent that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to preside over the matter, as the amount in controversy did not meet the jurisdictional threshold of the circuit court. Despite this, True Builders continued to litigate the matter in circuit court. Eventually, the case in circuit court was dismissed and re-filed in county court, where a negotiated settlement was reached.
Despite having dismissed the circuit court litigation, True Builders sought its attorneys’ fees and costs for litigating the matter in both circuit court and county court. The county court judge granted True Builders attorneys’ fees and costs for both the circuit court case and the county court case. Our client, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”), appealed. As it related to the matter of entitlement to fees and costs for litigating the case in circuit court, Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal (“Sixth District”) agreed with Universal and found that True Builders was not entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.
True Builders then filed a notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. True Builders argued to the Supreme Court that it should invoke jurisdictional review because it claimed the Sixth District’s opinion conflicted with Supreme Court precedent as well as with opinions of other Florida District Courts of Appeal. Joseph A. Matera, Esq. wrote the response brief for our firm on behalf of Universal, where he argued that the opinion of the Sixth District did not conflict with any Supreme Court precedent, nor did it conflict with any opinions of the other Florida District Courts of Appeal.
Specifically, Mr. Matera stressed to the Supreme Court that the Court’s Wollard decision did not relate to litigation that was dismissed and then re-filed, as Wollard involved a matter that was simply settled litigation that had not been previously dismissed. Mr. Matera also emphasized that the other District Court of Appeal decisions cited in True Builders’ brief related to pre-litigation attorneys’ fees and costs, as opposed to post-litigation fees and costs claimed in dismissed litigation.
The Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction, and therefore the petition to review was denied. Justices Canady, Couriel, Grosshans, Francis, and Sasso all concurred with the decision. The Supreme Court also noted in its order that it would not entertain any motion for rehearing.
Congratulations to Universal!