Smith v. Conlon, 355 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The statute’s purpose, according to the court in Roberts, “is to discourage contesting valid claims by insureds against insurance companies.” Greenberg correctly says that his action against Sheridan does not arise under the Insurance Code and that the trial court’s fee award was not made under Section 627.-428(1). He argues that therefore Roberts is not controlling. His argument proves too much. If the award of attorneys’ fees to him is not pursuant to any statutory authority (it being undisputed that there was no contractual arrangement for fees), there is no authority at all for a fee award. Greenberg points to Duncanson v. Service First, Inc., 157 So.2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), as stating a contrary rule. A close (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (<HOLDING>); Susman v. Schuler, 328 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA
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 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 false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding that on the basis of usages and principles of equity plaintiff was entitled to recover his attorneys fees to defend prior lawsuit because the expenses were caused by the defendants wrongful act 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