TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
EMMA SOTOLONGO, 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.
Travelers Indemnity Company appealed a trial court's award of attorney's fees of $28,125 where the client's recovery was only $6,793 in a homeowners insurance claim for stolen property. The court reversed, holding that trial courts are not obligated to apply a contingency risk multiplier in every case and must conduct an evidentiary hearing with findings before enhancing fees based on contingency risk.
A court is not obligated to adjust the lodestar fee in every case where successful prosecution was unlikely. When application of the contingency risk factor may be appropriate, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings supporting the fee enhancement.
[1] A trial court is not obligated to apply a contingency risk multiplier to a lodestar fee in every case where the likelihood of success was unlikely.
[2] When a contingency risk multiplier is applied to enhance a lodestar fee, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings to support the enhancement.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the court is not obligated to adjust the lodestar fee in every case where a successful prosecution of the claim was unlikely”
Establishes that contingency risk multipliers are discretionary, not mandatory, under Rowe
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe insured claimed $10,000 in personal property was stolen from her automobile trunk while parked at a shopping center. The claimed items included ca…
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 Lodestar Fee cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1385] FERGUSON, Judge.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s application of the contingency risk multiplier, adopted by the supreme court in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), to award a fee of $28,125 where the client’s recovery was $6,793.1
This action was brought on a homeowners policy for personal property lost when the insured’s automobile was stolen from a shopping center parking lot. The insured claimed that she kept personal property worth $10,000 in the trunk of the automobile.
The trial judge thought the claim incredible and stated that he would have directed a defense verdict if the ease had been tried nonjury. He summed up the evidence:
[A] lady claimed that she left money under her seat for a couple of days and didn’t think about it and jewelry and where she left a case of creamed liquor in the car for three weeks approximately without thinking about it and a couple of VCRs and such and never told the police about any of this...
Because the likelihood of success at the outset was almost nonexistent he felt compelled, under the plain language of Rowe, to apply a high multiplier factor to the lodestar fee.
First, as we read Rowe, the court is not obligated to adjust the lodestar fee in every case where a successful prosecution of the claim was unlikely. Rowe, 472 So. 2d at 1151. Second, in cases where application of the contingency risk factor may be appropriate, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings which support the fee enhancement. The appellants contend here, correctly, that there should have been an evidentiary hearing complete with findings.
Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
. While this case was pending the United States Supreme Court decided Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987), where a plurality of the court was critical of the contingency risk factor to enhance a lodestar fee. In a concurring opinion, joining the plurality in part, Justice O’Connor was of the view that legal risks and risks unique to the case were already factored into the lodestar fee and that the contingency risk factor should apply only where there is a finding that the risk multiplier is necessary to attract competent counsel in the relevant community. Delaware Valley Citizens’Council for Clean Air, 107 S.Ct. at 3090-91 (O’Connor, J. concurring).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)…r review Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Co., 519 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal acknowledged conflict with the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Sotolongo, 513 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We agree that there is conflict.1 The question in this cause concerns the setting of a reasonable attorney’s fee under the lodestar approach and requires a determination of whether a contingency fee multiplier must be utilized wh…
-
Inacio v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 550 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ery, application of the contingency risk factor pursuant to Rowe is mandatory if there is any question that a recovery may be effected. Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, 519 So. 2d 1135. Cf., Travelers Indemnity Company v. Sotolongo, 513 So. 2d 1384 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); Reliance Insurance Co. v. Harris, 503 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The language of the Rowe opinion leaves no discretion to disregard application of the contingency risk factor in such circumstances: “When the prevailing party…
-
Quanstrom v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 519 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…omit factors or juggle the weight given a factor, beyond the perimeters given the exercise of discretion, in order to reach a preferred result. We note that our holding appears to be in direct conflict with Travelers Indemnity Company v. Sotolongo, 513 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The order setting appellant’s attorney’s fee is reversed and the cause remanded for the trial court to determine and apply the appropriate contingency fee multiplier as set forth in Rowe and to enter an appropriate award of atto…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1987)