DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE, PETITIONER,
v.
TERRI J. GANSON, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court quashed a district court decision awarding a contingency-risk multiplier in attorney's fees for a state health insurance benefits case, holding that such a multiplier is not automatically required in contingent-fee cases.
A contingency-risk multiplier is not automatically required in contingent-fee cases.
[1] A contingency-risk multiplier in attorney's fees is not automatically required merely because the client and attorney had a contingent-fee agreement.
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 intelligenceGanson successfully litigated a claim for state health insurance benefits against the Department of Administration. A hearing officer awarded attorney…
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 Contingency Fee Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Justice.
Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, we accepted jurisdiction in Ganson v. Department of Administration, 554 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), to resolve conflict with Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990). Ganson successfully litigated a claim for state health insurance benefits in which the district court of appeal ordered a hearing to determine an appropriate attorney’s fee. Ganson v. Department of Admin., 554 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).* The hearing officer submitted a report, which the district court adopted in toto. In that report, the hearing officer recognized that there was a split of authority on the issue but concluded that a contingency-risk multiplier was required because there was a contingent-fee agreement between the client and her attorney.
A few weeks after the district court of appeal affirmed the fee award, we issued Quanstrom, which held that the multiplier is not automatically required in contingent-fee cases. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d at 831. Therefore, the opinion below is incorrect and must be quashed. We remand for reconsideration in light of Quanstrom.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, EHRLICH, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur. *
That decision is not under review here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1993)…See Ganson v. State, Dep’t of Admin., 554 So. 2d 522, 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“[I]t also appears to be well settled that attorney fees may also be recoverable for the time spent litigating entitlement to attorney fees.”), quashed on other grounds, 566 So. 2d 791 (Fla.1990); Tiedeman v. City of Miami, 529 So. 2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“ [Attorney's fees were properly awardable under the ... statute for, among other things, litigating the amount of fee to be awarded[.]”); Gibson v. Walker, 380 So. 2d…
-
Procacci Commercial Realty, Inc. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 690 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Seros., 493 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Unless the parties can agree on the amount of fees and costs, evidence has to be taken on these questions. See Dep’t of Admin., Office of State Employees’ Ins. v. Ganson, 566 So. 2d 791 (Fla.1990). Entitlement is limited to fees and costs reasonably incurred by appellees in defending the appeal. While awards against an agency may in appropriate circumstances encompass fees and costs “for the administrative proceeding and the appell…
-
Diaz v. Santafe Healthcare, Inc., 642 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…o an award of fees extends to time spent by counsel litigating entitlement to fees, because the client has an interest in the amount of such award. Ganson v. Department of Administration, 554 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), quashed on other grounds, 566 So. 2d 791 (Fla.1990); Inacio v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 550 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). On the issue of whether counsel’s time spent establishing the amount of the fee is compensable, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
- Ganson v. State, 554 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Ganson v. State, 554 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)