BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
VALMORE GONZALEZ, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed attorney's fee award because trial court failed to make findings supporting application of a contingency risk multiplier to the lodestar fee in a personal injury protection benefits dispute.
A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and make specific findings supporting any contingency risk multiplier applied to a lodestar fee calculation.
[1] A trial court applying a contingency risk multiplier to a lodestar fee must conduct an evidentiary hearing and enter findings of fact supporting the enhancement, and is n…
Previewing 1 of 1 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”
Explaining that Rowe does not mandate contingency risk multipliers in all cases
Bankers Insurance Company appealed a final order awarding attorney's fees in an action to recover personal injury protection benefits, challenging the…
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
PER CURIAM.
Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers) appeals from a final order awarding attorney’s fees in an action to recover personal injury protection benefits. Bankers contends the trial court erred when it applied a contingency risk multiplier of 1.5 to the lodestar fee. Bankers also contends the trial court failed to state any findings in its order which would support the application of a contingency risk multiplier. We express no opinion concerning the amount of the fee awarded. However, we must reverse and remand this case because of the absence of findings which support the application of the contingency risk multiplier. It also appears the trial court may have been under the impression that Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), required application of a contingency risk multiplier. In Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Sotolongo, 513 So. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we pointed out that:
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Askowitz v. Susan Feuer Interior Design, Inc., 563 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ry because of the “subject matter of the litigation” and “in order to attract competent counsel within the bar”, citing this court’s opinions in Travelers In-dem. Co. v. Sotolongo, 513 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) and Bankers Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 545 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The trial judge then made separate determinations on the claim and counterclaim, applying different contingency risk multipliers to each. As to the plaintiff’s claim the court adjudged: 1. The reasonable and necessary number of…
-
Ganson v. State, 554 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ard Guaranty Insurance Company, 519 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). But several decisions in the Third District Court of Appeal have concluded that the contingency risk multiplier is not mandatory. See Bankers Insurance Company v. Valmore Gonzalez, 545 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); National Foundation Life Insurance Company v. Wellington, 526 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Travelers Indemnity Company v. Sotolongo, 513 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA (1987). Although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, unle…
-
AETNA Life Ins. Co. v. Casalotti, 544 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ermined the fees to be awarded in accordance with the requirements of Folta v. Bolton, 493 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1986); Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985) and this Court’s opinions in Bankers Insurance Co. v. Gonzalez, 545 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) and Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Sotolongo, 513 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Citing Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987), appellant in substance ask…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Sotolongo, 513 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)