Rovira v. LaGoDa, Inc.

Donald Rovira (plaintiff) was working for LaGoDa, Inc. (Lagoda) (defendant), a heating and air-conditioning business, when he injured his back. Rovira was temporarily unable to work due to his injury. Three days after Rovira returned to work, Lagoda terminated his employment. Rovira filed a claim for retaliatory discharge against Lagoda, alleging that he had been fired in retaliation for filing a workers’-compensation claim. Lagoda answered, alleging that Rovira had been terminated for legitimate business reasons. Lagoda filed a third-party complaint against its workers’-compensation insurer, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford (National) (defendant), seeking indemnity and costs of defense. Rovira then amended his complaint to name National. Lagoda’s policy with National provided that if Lagoda fired Rovira without just cause, then National would have to pay Rovira’s damages. If Rovira was fired without just cause due to Lagoda’s willful misconduct, then either Lagoda would have to pay Rovira or reimburse National for any payments National made to Rovira. If Rovira’s discharge was retaliatory for filing a workers’-compensation claim, then National would have to pay Rovira. National denied coverage. Lagoda continued to deny liability and settled Rovira’s claim for $1,500, an amount that Lagoda characterized as a nuisance settlement, to curtail any further defense costs. Lagoda then sought attorney’s fees and indemnification for the settlement amount from National. The trial court ordered National to pay Lagoda $4,366.70 in attorney’s fees, based on attorney’s-fee invoices submitted by Lagoda, plus costs and fees. The trial court denied indemnification for the settlement amount. Lagoda appealed, seeking a higher amount in attorney’s fees and indemnification, and National appealed, arguing that the award of attorney’s fees was erroneous.