Trial court abused its discretion by awarding counsel an hourly rate $50 above requested rate without any justification for its decision and trial court erred by applying 2.0 contingency multiplier as it was not supported by record evidence.

The homeowners filed a complaint against their insurance carrier, SafePoint, following the denial of their January 2016 hurricane claim. The parties ultimately resolved the substantive portion of the claim outside of the homeowners’ claim for entitlement to attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Florida Statute 627.428. Eventually, the lower court entered an order granting the homeowners’ entitlement to fees and set an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount. At the hearing, counsel for the homeowners sought fees reflecting an hourly rate of $600.00 and requested a 2.0 contingency fee multiplier. The insurance carrier not only objected to the request for the 2.0 multiplier, but also opposed some of the individual billing entries as unwarranted or incorrect. After the hearing, the trial court awarded the insured’s counsel an hourly rate of $650.00, $50.00 more than the hourly rate requested by their counsel. Additionally, the court applied the 2.0 multiplier. 

Upon appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal determined that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the insured’s counsel an hourly rate in excess of the $600.00 requested without any justification for its decision. They additionally concluded that the trial court erred by applying the 2.0 contingency multiplier when it was not supported by the record evidence. Specifically, they found that there was no testimony from the insureds that they had any difficulty retaining counsel with or without a multiplier. The trial court, thus, failed to make findings regarding the novelty and difficulty of the question of law involved or whether the insureds could find any other competent attorney in the relevant market to handle their case. The Third District ultimately reversed the fee order granting the $650.00 hourly rate and reversed the application of the contingency fee multiplier.

_{Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – August 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.}