where one of the provisions of an insurance contract is to provide a defense to the insured, a breach of that contract causing the insured to expend attorneys’ fees in providing for his own defense is an element of damages in a later suit against the insurer. Duncanson does not, therefore, represent a departure from the fundamental rule that attorneys’ fees will be awarded only pursuant to contract or statute. That rule concerns itself with attorneys’ fees for prosecuting or defending the action itself, not attorneys’ fees as an element of damages to be recovered within the action. Where, as here, the fees sought to be recovered by Greenberg were those incurred during the lawsuit against Sheridan and Kaiser, they are not recoverable. Compare Tidwell v. Witherspoon, 21 Fla. 359 (1885) (<HOLDING>); Bondy v. Royal Indemnity Co., 134 Fla. 776,
holding in a false imprisonment action that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorneys fees unless the services were to secure his discharge from the illegal restraint holding that a cause of action for illegal arrest and false imprisonment accrued at the time plaintiff was released from his alleged illegal restraint and not when the proceedings by which his arrest occurred terminated holding that the statute applies also to malicious prosecution actions holding that in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages not only for his unlawful arrest and imprisonment but also for expenses of his defense holding the same for malicious prosecution