Michael A. Packer

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the initial fee award entered by the trial court: $150 per hour more than plaintiff’s counsel’s contingency fee agreement and a 1.8 multiplier. The appellate court found the trial court did not make the necessary findings in the first-party property claim to justify those awards.

The underlying suit arose out of a water damage claim in which coverage was provided for the loss but the insured disputed the amount of the payment. Ultimately, a settlement was reached for the contractual damages, and the matter proceeded to a fee hearing. At the fee hearing, the plaintiff’s fee expert testified that, based on the experience of the attorney representing the insured, he was worth an hourly rate of $550, despite the fact that the retainer agreement with the insured reflected an hourly rate of $400. In addition, the expert testified a 1.8 multiplier was appropriate simply because counsel took the case on a contingency fee basis and the claim involved a covered loss. The trial court agreed and entered a fee award based on the higher hourly rate and awarded a 1.8 multiplier. As pointed out by the appellate court, however, the trial court made no findings to support the increased hourly fee or the reasonableness of a 1.8 multiplier as required by Florida law.

In reversing the trial court order, the Third District Court of Appeal explained, in order to support a determination of a lodestar amount, the trial court must address and make findings pursuant to Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) regarding: 

1. the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the question involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; 
2. the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; 
3. the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; 
4. the amount involved and the results obtained; 
5. the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; 
6. the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; 
7. the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and 
8. whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

In addition, there was no evidence to support a multiplier being awarded pursuant to the factors set forth in Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990) and whether: 

1. the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel; 
2. the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way; and 
3. any of the factors set forth in Rowe are applicable, especially, the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee arrangement between the attorney and his client.

The district court found there was no competent, substantial evidence to support the 1.8 multiplier, nor were there findings and rationale in the record to support the increased hourly lodestar rate. 

Accordingly, the matter was reversed and remanded to the trial court to recalculate the fee award based on the retainer agreement’s hourly rate and without the contingency fee multiplier. 

---

 

_{Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – March 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}