ENNIA SCHADEVERZEKERING, N.V., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD BUZINSKI, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ennia Schadeverzekering appealed an award of attorneys' fees, arguing it was not supported by substantial competent evidence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that fee awards cannot be based solely on contingent fee contract terms but must consider multiple statutory factors under Rule 2-106.
The court reversed the fee award because it was not supported by substantial competent evidence. The court held that attorneys' fees awards cannot be based solely on contingent fee contract terms but must be determined by considering all eight factors outlined in Rule 2-106 and applying guidelines from Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe.
[1] An award of attorneys' fees must be supported by substantial competent evidence.
[2] When a litigant is required to pay another's attorneys' fees by rule or statute, the fee amount cannot be based solely on the terms of a contingent fee contract.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where one litigant is required by rule or statute to pay attorneys' fees incurred by another, the amount established by the court may not be based solely on the terms of a contingent fee contract.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that contingent fee contracts cannot be the sole basis for determining fee awards in statutory or rule-based fee-shifting contexts.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not provide detailed factual background about the underlying dispute. It addresses only the procedural issue of whether an attorneys'…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contingent Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
[*542] HERSEY, Judge.
The award of attorneys’ fees appealed here is not supported by substantial competent evidence and we therefore reverse.
Where one litigant is required by rule or statute to pay attorneys’ fees incurred by another, the amount established by the court may not be based solely on the terms of a contingent fee contract. Insurance Company of North America v. Welch, 266 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), cert. denied, 273 So. 2d 77 (Fla.1973). See also Florida Medical Center, Inc. v. Von Stetina, 436 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Kaufman & Broad Home Systems, Inc. v. Sebring Airport Authority, 366 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
A fee established in this context must be based upon consideration of all of the following factors spelled out in Rule 2-106, promulgated pursuant to Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
(1) The time and labor required; the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.
(2) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer. (3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.
(4) The amount involved and the results obtained.
(5) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances.
(6) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.
(7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services.
(8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
We therefore reverse and remand for redetermination of the fee, taking each of these factors into account, and applying the guidelines recently promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 10 F.L.W. 249 (Fla. May 2, 1985).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. von Stetina, 436 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Kaufman & Broad Home Sys., Inc. v. Sebring Airport Auth., 366 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Greene v. State, 266 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Allbritton v. State, 266 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Janies Ferguson v. Little, 273 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1973)
- Barrueta v. Seaferro Co., 273 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1973)