Trial courts must make specific findings as to reasonableness of hours and reductions in attorney fee awards.
This case arises from Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s appeal of a trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs/insureds as the prevailing party. Universal did not dispute the insureds’ entitlement to fees but, instead, the amount awarded.
The insureds received a judgment of $43,500 and moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 627.428, Florida Statutes (2022). The plaintiffs submitted affidavits attesting to 388.2 hours of total work. Universal requested a reduction of 182 hours for excessive, cumulative or ministerial work. At a hearing on the fees, the Universal’s expert testified the time was excessive and pointed to the reduction report for support. By contrast, the insureds’ expert recommended that the court reduce the hours of three of the billing attorneys by 10 hours each for a “general reduction.” This recommendation was based on his personal experience, stating, “That’s just the way I do it. I made a reduction, I thought it was a fair reduction.” The court accepted the insureds’ plan of the general reduction and awarded $254,525.00 in fees after reducing only 30 hours. No specific findings were made by the court.
The Third District Court of Appeal reviewed the award on an abuse of discretion. “In determining the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement factors, the trial court must set forth specific findings.” The court cited to a similar Third District case, UPCIC v. Deshpande, where an attorney’s fee award was reversed when the trial court adopted the plaintiff’s proposed fee amounts and general reductions without making any findings as to the appropriateness of the number of hours billed or the reductions implemented.
The court did not make any specific findings as to disputed time entries which may have been excessive, vague, duplicative or ministerial. Nor did the court apply any particularized reductions or make any findings as to the appropriateness of reductions. Rather, without explanation, the court adopted the Plaintiff’s fee expert’s 10% blanket reduction to the number of hours expended. We find this reduction arbitrary and unsupported. Because the $441,805.14 fee award in this case is not supported by competent, substantial evidence, we reverse the lodestar amount.
The trial court decision, therefore, was vacated as there were no specific findings as to the reasonableness of the original 388.2 hours and no findings as to the reasonableness of the plaintiffs’ expert’s general 10 hour reduction plan. However, since an evidentiary hearing had taken place, where evidence and testimony was offered by both sides, a specific remand for a whole new hearing was not ordered. “[A]s a general rule, where a party seeking fees and costs has been afforded an evidentiary hearing, it is not entitled to a second bite at the apple to prove its claim.”
The appellate court reversed, with instructions for the trial court to conduct an additional evidentiary hearing, thus affording the trial court the opportunity to consider the insurer’s reduction report and to make sufficient findings as to the reasonable amount of billable hours, rates and any reductions.
Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – June 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.