Florida has had a long-running battle with attorney fees. Aggressive plaintiff litigation has been considered a major cause of high Florida premiums for a number of types of insurance coverage, with Governor Ron DeSantis saying that Florida has long been a “judicial hellhole” and that changes are necessary to “protect Floridians and our economy from predatory lawsuits.”
And with some relevance to lawyers’ costs, the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida has reversed a trial court’s decision awarding enhanced attorney’s fees and a contingency fee multiplier in a dispute between Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company and policyholder Abel Medero.
The case stemmed from a 2019 water damage claim filed by Medero against Universal, which boasts a network of over 10,000 independent agents. While Universal admitted coverage and paid for the damages, a dispute arose over just how much the dollar amount for the damage should be. After prolonged litigation, the parties reached a settlement; however there was one last stumbling block - they could not agree on the amount of attorneys’ fees owed to Medero’s counsel.
At the initial fee hearing, the trial court sanctioned Universal for failing to comply with court orders by preventing it from presenting evidence or objections regarding the attorney’s fees.
Medero’s legal team sought a lodestar fee award (hours x reasonable, hourly rate x multiplier) with a $150 hourly rate increase and a 1.8 contingency fee multiplier. The trial court granted both requests without making specific factual findings to justify them.
Universal appealed the fee award, arguing that the trial court erred in approving the hourly rate increase and the contingency multiplier without proper justification. The appellate court agreed, finding that the trial court failed to provide sufficient findings required by Florida Supreme Court precedents set in Rowe and Quanstrom, which outline the factors courts must consider when awarding attorney’s fees and multipliers.
The appellate court noted that Medero’s fee expert had not provided concrete evidence that the Miami-Dade legal market required a multiplier to secure competent counsel. Additionally, the court found no justification for the $150 per hour increase beyond the expert’s opinion.
As a result, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for recalculation of the attorney’s fees without the $150 per hour rate increase and without the 1.8 contingency fee multiplier.
This ruling reinforces the requirement for trial courts to provide detailed findings when awarding attorney’s fees beyond contractual agreements, ensuring that such awards align with established legal standards
