UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., A/A/O JOHNNY EDMONDSON
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.
A trial court's imposition of costs and attorney's fees after judgment is within its discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of that discretion, provided the order contains specific findings regarding hourly rate, hours expended, and any reduction or enhancement factors, supported by expert testimony.
[1] A trial court's order awarding attorney's fees must contain specific findings as to the hourly rate charged, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriaten…
[2] Expert testimony concerning reasonable attorney's fees, rather than testimony solely from the attorney claiming the fee, is necessary to support an award of attorney's fe…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Imposition of costs after judgment is largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.”
Court citing Goslin v. Racal Data Commc'ns, Inc., 468 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 3d DCA)
United Automobile Insurance Company appealed a trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs to North Shore Medical Center in a case involving John…
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 Standard Of Review On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Goslin v. Racal Data Commc’ns, Inc., 468 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 3d DCA) (“Imposition of costs after judgment is largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.”); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coastal Radiology, LLC, 340 So. 3d 528, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (noting a trial court’s order must set forth “‘specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by Florida Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla. 1985)’” (quoting Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 928 So. 2d 449, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))); Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351, 352–53 (Fla. 1987) (“[I]t is well settled that the testimony of an expert witness concerning a reasonable attorney’s fee is necessary to support the establishment of the fee.”); Brake v. Murphy, 736 So. 2d 745, 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“[F]ees cannot be assessed based solely on the testimony of the attorney claiming the fee, but rather expert testimony must be offered substantiating the fee.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. N. Shore Med. Ctr., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…, 392 (Fla. 3d DCA) (“Imposition of costs after judgment is largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.”); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coastal Radiology, LLC, 340 So. 3d 528, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (noting a trial court’s order must set forth “‘specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by Florida Patient’s Com…
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. M & M Med. Ctr., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1987)
- Brake v. Eve E. Murphy, 736 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Goslin v. Racal Data Commc'ns, Inc., 468 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 928 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)