GEICO filed its certiorari petition in each case and the circuit court judge consolidated them into one. The circuit court denied GEICO's petitions in three out of the five cases and denied Shazam's motions for appellate attorney fees without explanation, according to the opinion.

Shazam appealed the denial of its fee motions in the three cases.

GEICO, citing the fact that the proceedings were consolidated, argued that Shazam ultimately was not successful because the circuit court granted GEICO's petitions in two of the five cases, the opinion said.

"This did not strip the underlying lawsuits of their individual character. Had the circuit court chosen to rule on the petitions in each case separately, there would be no question that Shazam prevailed as to the petitions in the case at issue here," Judge John K. Stargel wrote on behalf of the panel, adding even if Shazam "only scored a 'partial victory' in the consolidated proceeding, that would still not affect its entitlement to attorney's fees."

Judges Craig C. Villanti and Nelly Khouzam concurred, further finding that the the denial of a request for appellate attorney fees in the circuit court is properly reviewable by direct appeal rather than certiorari

"This approach better aligns with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A), which vests this court with appellate jurisdiction over 'final orders of trial courts' which are 'not directly reviewable by the supreme court or a circuit court,'" Stargel wrote, citing its 2006 decision in Fabing v. Eaton.

The appellate panel reversed the circuit court's order denying Shazam's request for appellate attorney fees in the three cases in which it prevailed. On remand, the circuit court was instructed to grant the windshield repair company's requests.

"The Second District correctly decided this case," said David M. Caldevilla of de la Parte & Gilbert, on behalf of Shazam. "GEICO's position in these cases was completely meritless, and was employed as a delay tactic."

The court's decision this week plays into the bigger narrative of the ongoing dispute between insurance companies and auto repair shops, explained Shazam's co-counsel, Michael Laurato, shareholder and partner of Austin & Laurato.

"The whole idea is misguided," Laurato said. "The federal lawsuits are a complete waste of judicial resources because they're brought under completely improper motives and the motive is to leverage settlement in the state cases. When there's a legitimate, bona fide dispute, we turn to the courts to resolve those—the glass companies, that's what they do. GEICO made the unilateral decision to pay half their bill at 50 percent of NAGS [National Auto Glass Specifications.]"

Under Florida law section 627.7288, an insurance company must pay for any windshield or repairs under comprehensive car insurance policies. But, in some instances—like in Shazam's case—insurance companies aren't paying what the independent glass company charge, even at NAGS industry standard prices, Laurato explained.

" There are some really important issues at stake here," Laurato told Law.com. "The problem is that they aren't legal issues—they're legislative issues. The 'no deductible statute,' lawyers didn't make that. The attorney's [fee] provision, we don't make that rule."

In the federal lawsuit against it, Shazam filed a motion for summary judgment in the Middle District of Florida and the case remains pending. The case is assigned to Judge Mary S. Scriven.

A message seeking comment from John P. Marino of Smith of Gambrell & Russell, who represented GEICO, was not immediately returned.