Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT GARY SANTORO, Appellant, v. ASANKA CARS.COM, INC., and AMERICAN SAFETY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees. No. 2D20-689 June 2, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Andrea McHugh, Judge. Richard N. Asfar of Cotney Construction Law, LLP, Tampa; and Roger D. Mason, II and Autumn D. Tolar of Roger D. Mason, II, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Erin M. Berger and Melissa A. Giasi of Giasi Law, Tampa, for Appellee American Safety Casualty Insurance Company. No appearance for Appellee Asanka. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hill v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 956, 960, 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (dealing with section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2004), and stating that the reason for an award of attorneys' fees under the statute "is the notion that the insureds filed suit 'to resolve a legitimate dispute' and not simply to collect attorneys' fees" (quoting Lewis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 13 So. 3d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)); questioning whether the lawsuit "was merely a preemptive lawsuit intended to obtain attorneys' fees for the usual efforts in negotiating an insurance claim" and stating that "the fees should normally be limited to the work associated with filing the lawsuit after the insurance carrier has ceased to negotiate or has breached the contract and the additional legal work necessary and reasonable to resolve the breach of contract"); Goldman v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 244 So. 3d 310, 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (recognizing that attorney's fees are recoverable under section 627.428 "when the claims adjusting process breaks down and the parties are no longer working to resolve the claim within the contract, but are actually taking steps that breach the contract" (quoting Hill, 35 So. 3d at 960)); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 969 So. 2d 393, 397-98 (Fla. 5th DCA 2 2007) (stating that the confession of judgment "doctrine applies where the insurer has denied benefits the insured was entitled to, forcing the insured to file suit, resulting in the insurer's change of heart and payment before judgment" and that it does not apply "where the insureds were not forced to sue to receive benefits"). SILBERMAN, BLACK, and SLEET, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 3