Overview | Blog Posts, News | Keegan Lathan | Related | Print | Share
In a series of recent consolidated cases, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether an indemnity payment made after a lawsuit is filed constitutes a confession of judgment entitling the claimants to attorney’s fees. GEICO Casualty Company v. Open Magnetic Scanning of Boca Delray, No. 4D2023-2199, 2025 WL 2969136 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 22, 2025). The court held that an insurance company did not confess judgment when the insurer made a payment to medical providers after the provider filed a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) and a lawsuit but before the lawsuit was served on the company. As a result, the providers were not entitled to attorney’s fees under Florida law.
Following multiple auto accidents, medical providers performed services and submitted charges to the insurance companies for payment of personal injury protection benefits. The insurers reduced the charges pursuant to federal statutes and guidelines and paid the reduced charges to the medical providers.
The providers filed lawsuits alleging that the insurers underpaid the claims. The providers also alleged that if they were to win these lawsuits, the providers would be allowed to recover attorney’s fees for being forced to file the lawsuits. Notably, however, after the providers filed the lawsuits, they did not actually take steps to serve the insurance companies with the lawsuits.
Along with filing the lawsuits, the medical providers also filed CRNs as the condition precedent for later proceeding with bad faith lawsuits. In response, the insurer denied any wrongdoing, but “in the spirit of compromise” they issued additional payments to the providers in the amounts that the medical providers claim, less prior payments. After the payments were issued, the providers served the companies with the lawsuits and argued that the insurers “confessed judgment” because payment was made after the lawsuits were filed.
The court rejected the providers’ argument, holding that the filing of a lawsuit does not automatically give the court power over the insurance companies. Instead, Florida courts obtain jurisdiction over a defendant only when the defendant has been served with the lawsuit. The court stated that disregarding service of process would not only create a “slippery slope” of speculating when a party was on notice of a lawsuit, but also would encourage unnecessary lawsuits simply to obtain attorney’s fees.
Furthermore, the court held that receiving a CRN payment merely to get attorney’s fees in a lawsuit defeats the purpose of the rules surrounding CRNs and confession of judgment, both of which are designed to discourage unnecessary lawsuits.
For any further questions, please contact Keegan Lathan.