# Advanced Chiropractic and Rehabilitation Center, Corp. v. United Automobile Insurance Co.

> Supreme Court of Florida · May 29, 2014 · 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 360

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800946

## Case

- **Full name:** ADVANCED CHIROPRACTIC AND REHABILITATION CENTER, CORPORATION, Etc., Petitioner, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** May 29, 2014
- **Citations:** 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 360; 140 So. 3d 529; 2014 Fla. LEXIS 1743; 2014 WL 2208895
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Polston
- **Judges:** Lewis, Pariente, Quince, Labarga, Perry, Polston, Canady
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800946

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 627.428(1) that was filed six days after the appellate court granted certiorari relief was timely and remanding for a determination of the amount of attorney’s fees to which the insured was entitled

## Opinion text

POLSTON, C.J.,
dissenting.
I would discharge jurisdiction because the Fourth District’s decision in Advanced Chiropractic and Rehabilitation Center, Corp. v. United Automobile Insurance Co., 103 So.3d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), does not expressly and directly conflict with our decision in Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla.1991), or Green v. Sun Harbor Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc., 730 So.2d 1261 (Fla.1998).
The Florida Constitution limits this Court’s express and direct conflict jurisdiction to a situation where a district court’s decision “expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law.” Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const, (emphasis added). The required conflict does not exist here because the Fourth District’s decision in Advanced Chiropractic addresses a question of law that is entirely different from the questions of law we addressed in Stockman and Green .
In Advanced Chiropractic, 103 So.3d at 870 , the Fourth District addressed whether “in an original proceeding governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100, a request for attorney’s fees must be included in the petition, response, or reply.” In contrast, both Stockman and Green were trial-level attorney’s fees cases that had nothing to do with the procedure for requesting attorney’s fees in an original proceeding governed by the appellate rules of procedure. Specifically, Stockman, 573 So.2d at 836 , addressed the following question of law: “May a prevailing party recover attorney’s fees authorized in a statute or contract by a motion filed within a reasonable time after entry of a final judgment, which motion raises the issue of that party’s entitlement to attorney’s fees for the first time?” And Green, 730 So.2d at 1261 , addressed the altogether different legal question of “whether a defendant must raise a claim for attorney fees prior to dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint when the time period to answer the complaint has not yet matured.”
CANADY, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800946. Public record. Not legal advice.