The instant appeal involves a fee dispute arising from Auto-Owners’ suit against Southeast based on a written indemnity contract. Southeast prevailed, and filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 768.79. The district court *855 denied the motion, and Southeast appealed to this court. We certified questions to the Supreme Court of Florida, 1 including the following question:

DOES FLORIDA STATUTE § 768.79 APPLY TO CASES THAT ARE GOVERNED BY THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION; AND, IF SO, IS THIS STATUTE APPLICABLE EVEN TO CONTROVERSIES IN WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE CONTRACTUALLY AGREED TO BE BOUND BY THE SUBSTANTIVE LAWS OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION?

In the indemnity contract, the parties agreed that the substantive law of Michigan would apply. 2 The Supreme Court of Florida answered the certified question in the negative, holding that § 768.79 is substantive in nature for conflict of laws purposes, that no sufficient public policy concerns override the parties’ right to choose the law of a particular forum that governs the substantive portions of their contract, and thus that § 768.79 simply does not apply. 3 The Florida Supreme Court also disapproved of BDO Seidman, LLP v. British Car Auctions, Inc., 802 So.2d 366, 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Although the judgment of the district court denying attorney’s fees and costs was based upon a different ground, we affirm on the ground articulated by the Supreme Court of Florida.

AFFIRMED.