DENNIS M. LEWIS, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
MARIEANN BONDY AND JOHN K. BONDY, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contingency Risk Multiplier cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal we uphold the trial court’s determination that the appellees are entitled to an attorney’s fee award under section 768.79, Florida Statutes. However, on cross-appeal we conclude that the court should have considered the applicability of a contingency risk multiplier in connection with the attorney’s fee award. See Pirelli Armstrong Tire v. Jensen, 752 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Garrett v. Mohammed, 686 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev. denied, 697 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1997); Collins v. Wilkins, 664 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. denied, 670 So. 2d 937 (Fla.1996). We also conclude that the court should have awarded the full amount of costs taxable under section 57.041, Florida Statutes, rather than limiting this award to costs incurred after the proposed settlement. See Lieff v. Sandoval, 726 So. 2d 335, n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 740 So. 2d 528 (Fla.1999). The appealed order is therefore reversed and the case is remanded.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 863 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2003)…eloso, 731 So. 2d at 64. Id. at 873. The First District Court of Appeal has held that a trial court should have considered the applicability of a contingency risk multiplier in connection with a section 768.79 attorney fee award in Lewis v. Bondy, 752 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and subsequent cases. In Lewis, the court aligned with the majority in Pirelli Armstrong Tire, but did not set forth independent analysis. However, in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Carter, 848 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003…
-
Island Hoppers, Ltd. v. Norma Beard Keith for the Estate of Marsha K. Beard, 820 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…a multiplier of 2.8 was warranted in the instant case. We recognize both the First and Second Districts have recently upheld the legal validity of application of a multiplier in conjunction with a fee award under section 768.79. See Lewis v. Bondy, 752 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Pirelli Armstrong, 752 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Allstate Insurance Co. v. Material 787 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(holding multiplier was not applicable to section 768.79 award because plaintiff failed to intro…
-
Amisub (American Hospital) Inc. v. Hernandez, 817 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…upreme Court, "along with all other relevant criteria.” § 768.79(6)(a),(b) and (7)(b); Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Jensen, 752 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Collins v. Wilkins, 664 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA [*873] 1995); see also Lewis v. Bondy, 752 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)(remanded to consider the application of an appropriate multiplier). The Fifth District recently decided that a contingency fee multiplier should not be applied to attorney's fees in demand for judgment cases. See Allstate Ins. Co…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Meta E. Jensen, 752 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Collins v. Wilkins, 664 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Garrett v. Rahammet Mohammed, 686 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Lieff v. Sandoval, 726 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)